Getting ‘Cooked’ by Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Global Warming

Human shadow etched in stone from Hiroshima Atomic blast.These stone steps led up to the entrance to the Sumitomo Bank Hiroshima Branch, 260meters from the hypocenter. The intense atomic heat rays turned the surface of the stonewhite, except for a part in the middle where someone was sitting. The person sitting on the steps waiting for the bank to open received the full force of the heat rays directly from the front and undoubtedly died on the spot. The building was used for a time after the war. When it was rebuilt in 1971, these steps were removed and brought to the museum. Source: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

Why comparing global warming to the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb is ridiculous

Some days, you just have to laugh. That’s what we’ll have to do today after reading the latest ridiculous scare story from cartoonist turned pseudo-psychologist now elevated to ‘climate scientist’ John Cook from the antithetically named ‘Skeptical Science’ website.

He’d like people to think the effect of global warming is as powerful as the effect of an atomic bomb, but as we’ll see, it is another one of those scare by scale stories where you grab some iconic image from the public consciousness and use it to make your issue seem bigger than it really is. For example, in 2010 normally calving glacier ice was compared to Manhattan Island to give it scale: Oh no! Greenland glacier calves island 4 times the size of Manhattan

Now, the same trick is being used by John Cook to try to scare people, because what could be more scary than getting vaporized by an Atomic Bomb? It just goes to show the depths of desperation used to try to sell the public on a problem that isn’t getting much traction.

From the article Climate change like atom bomb: scientists.

Humans are emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other time in history, says John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

“All these heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere mean … our planet has been building up heat at the rate of about four Hiroshima bombs every second – consider that going continuously for several decades.”

Whoa,  four Hiroshima bombs every second. How scary is that? Well not only is it not an original idea by Cook, compared to the amount of energy received by the Earth from the biggest fusion bomb in our solar system, our sun, it hardly registers a blip.

You see, we’ve dealt with this nonsense before, back in May 2012 when NASA’s Dr.  Hansen made the same comparison, which Cook didn’t attribute to him.  Hansen said then in an article in the Vancouver Observer:

In a must-see TED talk, NASA climate scientist James Hansen say the current increase in global warming is:

 “…equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”

That’s 278 atomic bombs worth of energy every minute – more than four per second — non-stop. To be clear, that is just the extra energy being gained each day on top of the energy heating our planet by 0.8 degree C. It is the rate at which we are increasing global warming.

Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:

1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source

Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)

Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.

A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.

Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.

To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.

Transparentised version of Image:Gluehlampe 01...

What a 0.6 watt light bulb might look like when turned on.

So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb in a standard Edison base such as at right, with 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.

Could you even see its output?

And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?

As Dr. Judith Curry points out, the paper An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations by Stephens et al. says this about down-welling long wave infrared radiation (what CO2 affects) and that 0.6 watts of imbalance on the surface that Hansen claims:

stephens_et_al_energy_balance_diagram

Note the figure on the Earth that I highlighted in yellow: Surface imbalance 0.6±17

That’s an uncertainty of 17 watts, or if you prefer Hansen-Cook parlance, 4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs an uncertainty of ±113 Hiroshima bombs every second.

The ±17 watts uncertainty of the 0.6 watt surface imbalance is two orders of magnitude larger than the claim! But, activists like Cook say global warming will “Cook’ us for sure.

Hmmm. Something bigger is needed to keep it scary. How about comparing Hiroshima bombs to the biggest fusion bomb in the solar system, the sun? From our article:

The Hiroshima bomb released ~ 67 TeraJoules (TJ) = 6E13J. source

The earths circular area is 3 * (6E6m)^2 = 1E14m2.

The suns TSI is ~ 1kW = 1E3 J/s, so the earth gets ca 1E17 J/s on the sunlit side, so the sun explodes about 1E17/6E13 = 1E3 Hiroshima atomic bombs on this planet EVERY SECOND.
(h/t to bvdeenen)

Gosh, a thousand Hiroshima bombs exploding on this planet every second? How frightening! With that sort of threat, one wonders why Obama isn’t going to announce taxing the sun into submission next Tuesday.

These calculation just go to illustrate that in the grand scheme of things, not only is the global energy associated with global warming small, it isn’t even within the bounds of measurement certainty.

Da bomb, it isn’t. Time to ‘Cook’ up a new scare story.

Here’s the funny thing though, as Donna Laframboise points out, in addition to the laughable statement that Cook plagiarized from Hansen above, somehow the amazing “postdoctoral fellow” without a PhD has somehow been elevated to the status of “climate scientist” by the French in a recent article. Climate Change Likened to Atom Bomb by Scientists.

Leframboise writes:

===============================================================

Although that article talks about “climate scientists” it names and quotes exactly one person – Cook himself. Moreover, the claims here are nothing short of fantastical. It says that climate scientists

have given figures of rising and changing climate. These figures are almost like a warning that states that escalating temperatures are equivalent to four Hiroshima bombs in a week.

They’ve completely attributed the condition to human actions.

It’s clear that this reporter’s first language is not English, so I’m sure she has misunderstood. No official document of which I’m aware has declared humans 100% responsible for current temperature trends (see, for example, the discussion here).

===============================================================

Gotta love it, cartoonist turned “climate scientist”. It’s Da bomb.

Thank goodness for The Pause.

UPDATE: Jo Nova also has a essay on the subject here: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientists-move-to-atom-bomb-number-system-give-up-on-exponentials/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, James Hansen, Ridiculae and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

220 Responses to Getting ‘Cooked’ by Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Global Warming

  1. Robin says:

    Anthony–

    I think the continued references to Hiroshima are also a part of the Mindset to be deliberately cultivated in K-12 as being a Globally Competent Citizen. This is the graphic from the Smithsonian Conference http://www.smithsonianconference.org/shout/vgf-global-competence/ .

    Beyond cultivating a fetish about AGW and the need to “do something,” there is a real interest in revisiting the existence of nuclear weapons at all. By focusing on the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as you can see from this graphic.

    So making that into metaphor to prompt the horror of what AGW will supposedly do is simply relaying on the erroneous beliefs and making emotions a habit of mind that are being deliberately conveyed in the classroom. Add in modelling via games or visually compelling software and you will have future students believing and acting on this nonsense. It will go to the marrow of their Identity and view of themselves and the world. Which is of course the whole point.

    This is not just a US push either. I read the Australian version of this yesterday. Written in 2008 and reprinted in 2011 to make sure the students in Oz are all developing the desired beliefs that are deemed Global Competences.

  2. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I wonder if Cook actually has any friends? – I mean, if you or I knew people that came out with such crapola on a regular basis – you would hardly want to be seen with or even associated with them? Still, maybe he has regular meet ups with co-alarmists to see who can scare each other the most? Sad, really, very sad……..

  3. Gene Selkov says:

    Anthony, I can tell you first language is English, which makes you insensitive to grammatical gender. Sorry for the nitpick; “Framboise” is feminine, so it does not mate well with the masculine definite article, “le”. Donna’s surname is Laframboise.

    Otherwise, it is a remarkable calculation — the kind schoolchildren should be taught to make.

    REPLY: Simple typo, much like “you first language”, now fixed thanks – A

  4. noaaprogrammer says:

    And back in the ’70s, nuclear bombs would plunge the world into an ice age. (Yes, I know this claim was based on the dust the bombs would disperse.)

  5. Robin says:

    This is the link to the Australian document. http://www.globaleducation.edu.au/verve/_resources/GPS_web.pdf

    All these deliberately cultivated false beliefs are coming in under what is termed “global education.”
    –Interdependence and globalization
    –Identity and cultural diversity
    –Social justice and human rights
    –Peace building and conflict resolution
    –Sustainable futures

    The constant mentions of Hiroshima then are no accident but part of “students will be provided with opportunities to develop values, knowledge, skills and capacity for action to become good global citizens.”

  6. Cam_S says:

    Whenever somebody starts comparing the damage of global warming to atomic bombs, I say…

    As human beings, we can adapt to a few degrees of temperature. But we cannot adapt to nuclear radiation.

  7. Mark Whitney says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a problem with the second set of equations about the sun. I seem to recall that one raised to any power is still one. I think the ones are supposed to be tens.

  8. KevinM says:

    Your lightbulb analogy does not deliver the message well or clearly. It’s not clear you are talking about 5e14 light bulbs. That number of bulbs at any power does not minimize the impression well.

  9. Keitho says:

    Well, as we all saw here onWUWT after the Fukushima incident was being discussed, the whole radiation story is full of scare tactics itself. The lies we are fed continuously by the political elite and the MSM are designed to keep us fearful and beholden to our leaders. AGW is no different and the only objective can be globalisation of political and administrative governance.

    Young people who have been educated since the 90′s have no real problem with the concept and I suspect we are seen as out of touch old fuddy duddies. It seems that no matter how often we “win” on the science the sociology reigns supreme. This link is an eye opener as it makes you realise just what we are up against.

    http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/reorienting-world-order-values-via-the-intervention-of-activist-education-and-progressive-politics/

    I know that nothing good can be built on a lie and that ultimately the AGW story will die but in the meantime look at how much damage and cost these social “scientists” will have wrought. At university we engineering students had nothing but contempt for these pseudo scientists, and I still don’t, but they are very clever at manipulating the perceived reality of a lot of people. Douglas Adams called them the B-Ark people and there are a lot of them and it looks like a lot work for the media and the civil service and education.

  10. Doug Huffman says:

    Bomb data is what gave US the Linear, No-Threshold hypothesis, stymieing radiation hormesis advocates still.

  11. William Sears says:

    Mark Whitney,

    It’s not what you think it is. It is computer scientific notation as explained below.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation

    A common mistake.

  12. jai mitchell says:

    Anthony,

    To answer you questions, no, I do not work for an NGO nor am I paid to post here. I post here because the paranoia and anti-science/science ignorance here is a focal point for likeminded conspiracy theorists and extreme right-wing conservatives to champion their false beliefs based on lies and ignorance.

    In sharing the absolutely easy rebuttals to the insane ruminations coming out of this blog, by people who are given editorial rights here, I hope to show to the public viewing this site just how closed off (censoring my comments) and ignorant (how easy is this for someone with just an engineer’s background in physics to show the idiocy of these theories!) your theories and arguments are.

    Like the above post by you. While the uncertainty of the TOA is well known, the TOA is not the method that is used to determine the amount of heat energy reflected back to the earth’s surface by increases in CO2.

    So your argument of TOA is simply showing that something that isn’t done shouldn’t be done. It is this kind of false equivalency that is used to convince people with no scientific background that your arguments are correct. This kind of argument is called a Straw Man argument and is the most common argument technique used by the right wing to disseminate lies.

    The scientific fact is that the .6 watts per meter squared of additional heat energy calculated as being the minimum of current warming going on IS equal to that number of Hiroshima bombs going off every day in the earth’s atmosphere. This is how one effectively shows what that amount of energy represents.

    similarly it is shown that the amount of total solar radiation hitting the earth’s surface each second is more than the total energy used by humanity every calendar year, by several orders of magnitude. . .

    REPLY: Dude,

    1. This is the wrong thread to respond to the questions I put to you on another thread, decorum dictates you respond on the thread the question was asked on. But since you are an attention seeking type that wants these thread to be all about him, I understand why you posted here.

    2. I’m not arguing about the TOA, Top Of Atmosphere, I’m citing the SURFACE. Do try to keep up. See Bob Tisdale’s comment below.

    3. I never claimed the Hiroshima unit Hansen calculated was wrong, only ridiculous. Since you often can’t detect ridiculous claims due to your dogma overwhelming your logic, I don’t expect you to understand.

    4. Your comments are censored? You have 138 of them now at WUWT. Three were snipped because you started to get out of line and were not paying attention to others in the other thread. If that upsets you, tough noogies. Want some cheese to go with that whine?

    5. “I hope to show to the public viewing this site just how closed off (censoring my comments) and ignorant …” Do be careful of copyright and libel. You don’t have my permission to use my content elsewhere.
    -Anthony

  13. Bob Tisdale says:

    At the top of the atmosphere, the measured radiation imbalance in 0.6 +/- 0.4 watts/m^2, and at the surface the assumed imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/m^2. Yup. That’s climate science in a nutshell.

  14. highflight56433 says:

    The false teacher and his gullible student equally share a bed of doom.

  15. Mike Bromley the Kurd near the Green Line says:

    And that 0.6w/m2 assumes that the earth is a disc, not a sphere? In other words, it’s likely to be even LESS….Oh, the humanity.

  16. Doug Huffman says:

    About scientific notation, someone mentioned Big O notation recently here, for really big numbers, like bigger than the deficit is and, hopefully, bigger than it will be.

  17. MP says:

    @Mark Whitney The notation “1E14″ doesn’t mean one raised to the 14th power, it means 1 times 10 to the 14th power (alternate notaton: 1 x 10^14). And 6E13 means 6 x 10^13, etc.

  18. If Cook wants to be taken seriously as a comedian he should stick to nonsense that’s funny.

  19. John Tillman says:

    noaaprogrammer says:
    June 23, 2013 at 7:13 am

    The Nuclear Winter scam was based largely upon soot from presumed fires. Some of the usual suspects from the CACCA hoax were involved, like the late Stephen Schneider, who was a lot more circumspect about his group’s assumptions when speaking in private to a scientifically educated reporter. Paul Ehrlich said that if questioned much more, such further discussion would require payment.

  20. Old'un says:

    Kev-in-UK says : ‘I wonder if Cook has any friends?’.

    Yes, ‘DANA’, who recently used the Hiroshima quote (without attribution), in a blog in ‘The Guardian’ garbage bin recently.

  21. Stephen Richards says:

    99.96% of the atmosphere is CO² free. There isn’t any CO² in 99.96% of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is nearly 4 x 9s pure of CO². There I’ve said it in as many different ways as possible.

  22. chris y says:

    The diagram also shows a TOA imbalance of 0.6, +/- 0.4 W/m^2. But this appears to be the difference between incoming solar radiation of 340.2 +/- 0.1, and the sum of reflected solar (100 +/-2) and outgoing longwave radiation (239.7 +/- 3.3). The total outgoing is 339.7 +/-5.3 W/m^2.

    That puts the TOA imbalance at 0.5 +/-5.4 W/m^2. That is an uncertainty one order of magnitude larger than the purported imbalance.

    Whether you look at imbalance at the surface or TOA, the uncertainties completely swamp out the claimed signal. Climate science treats this as a feature, allowing all sorts of imaginary anthropogenic hobgoblins to be ‘seen’ in the noise.

  23. Mike Wryley says:

    Does anyone here have possible access to the climate report cooked up for government consumption mentioned on Bloomberg today “Climate by the Numbers” ?

  24. A. Watts posted in part: “What a 0.6 watt light bulb might look like when turned on.”, along with an image of of a non-glowing light bulb that appears to me to have design wattage of 40 to 100 watts.

    Incandescent light bulbs of design wattage around or even under .6 watt actually glow. And they do not look quite like the one shown.

    For example, there is the # 47 and the related 1847, design wattage .945 watt, and apparently widely used in pinball machines. There is the PR2, design wattage 1.19 watts, and used in most 2-cell incandescent flashlights, especially dollar store ones. And, before LEDs got into common use as indicator lamps in electronic equipment, incandescent lamps were used as indicator lamps. Many of those had design wattage .3 watt or less. Don’t forget about “grain of wheat” and “grain of rice” lamps. And, I remember some past model of a watch that is illuminated by incandescent lamps by pushing a button – presumably powered by watch batteries. I have a few incandescent lamps with design wattage of .03 watt (1.5 volts, 20 mA), and they visibly glow.

    REPLY: But those all have different filaments, designed for low voltage. I was comparing to the standard Edison base 60w bulb, at higher voltage, as you can clearly see. – Anthony

  25. Michael Moon says:

    “Down-welling Longwave…”

    The debate about Climate Change is all about CO2 absorbing UP-welling longwave. The concept that it then re-emits it Down is simply erroneous. When a molecule of CO2 absorbs a 15-micron photon, the molecule immediately vibrates, with the two Oxygen atoms suddenly moving off-center from the Carbon atom,, increasing the molecule’s dipole moment. In the time it would require for a molecule of CO2 to absorb and re-emit a 15 micron photon, the molecule will collide with several thousand air molecules, nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. Thus, it will thermalize this IR, heating the atmosphere a little, to the extent that one part in 2,500 can heat the rest. This is the real GHE! Of course water vapor does this too, a lot lot more than CO2.

    Climate “Scientists” who do not understand physics have used the pyrgeometers in an inappropriate way, promoting this myth that the atmosphere can heat the Earth’s surface. The Earth’s surface is almost always warmer than the atmosphere! Heat only flows one direction at a time, from warmer to cooler. When heat flows, the warmer thing cools off a little, and the cooler thing warms up a little. The big white-hot ball in the sky, with surface temperature at 5778 K, that is what heats the Earth’s surface. Father Sol does not cool down because of the never-ending fusion of hydrogen to helium, with mass defect 4,290,000 kg/second. As someone once said, “E=MC squared!” The Earth receives only one part in 2 billion of this energy, as we are much smaller than the Sun and pretty far away, luckily for all living things.

    The Hiroshima bomb was a lot hotter than 5778 K, as it was very small, putting out a tiny fraction of the Sun’s flux.

    I am not a Slayer, they have it wrong too…

  26. Justthinkin says:

    So just what do all those nukes on almost everybodie’s kitchen counters contribute in the AM miking all those coffees?

  27. These sort of sensationalist claims that warmists make are designed to hit the front pages of the tabloid newspapers and keep AGW alive and kicking. Sadly the people who read these tabloids take this rubbish seriously.
    Slightly off thread, but still topical, what has happened to Jai Mitchell and Margaret Hardman? Have their computers broken, their keyboards become worn out or have they morphed into the same individual with another alias?

  28. Kev-in-UK asks:-
    “I wonder if Cook actually has any friends? – ……..Still, maybe he has regular meet ups with co-alarmists to see who can scare each other the most? Sad, really, very sad……..”

    There is a small coterie of Climate refugees who have found a safe-house at the Guardian, where they can still share and try to outdo each other with their ever more outlandish alarmist nonsenses.

    The Guardian assures them of comfort and a sense of still belonging , with a ready made , if shrinking, audience that will lap up anything that was once fashionable.

    Don’t bother following the links. They just exemplify the recent applicants, to join Moonbat & friends.

    http://www.readfearn.com/2013/05/new-blog-planet-oz-gets-a-slot-on-the-guardian/

    http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/18/climate-change-citizens-climate-lobby-carbon-tax

    http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/20/climate-change-measuring-instruments-on-life-support

  29. Moderators you are well on the ball, I see you flag up J@i Mltchell and M@rg@ret H@rdm@n, together with @dolph HltIer and J0sef G0ebels. That might mean their computers are still working!
    I am only joking by the way and no offence was taken!

  30. Billy Liar says:

    Cam_S says:
    June 23, 2013 at 7:36 am

    But we cannot adapt to nuclear radiation.

    We are adapted already. We receive a continual dose of varying magnitude.

  31. Don says:

    Robin says:
    June 23, 2013 at 7:15 am

    (snip)

    All these deliberately cultivated false beliefs are coming in under what is termed “global education.”
    –Interdependence and globalization
    –Identity and cultural diversity
    –Social justice and human rights
    –Peace building and conflict resolution
    –Sustainable futures

    The constant mentions of Hiroshima then are no accident but part of “students will be provided with opportunities to develop values, knowledge, skills and capacity for action to become good global citizens.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    As exhibit 1 let me enter into evidence a certain recent prolific commenter named Jai. I propose a new unit of measure: the jai. A jai is equal to the political energy of one pseudoeducated sheeple at full propaganda saturation. Now do the math and derive a current jais/m^2 figure. Estimate a plausible growth rate and plot the curve. Now there’s a graph to fear!

  32. numerobis says:

    There’s actually papers that calculate the attribution; the state of science is debating whether humans are responsible for just over 100%, or just under. As in, without our influence, would the Earth be warming or cooling a tiny bit? But all the recent papers I’ve seen indicate the human influence is far larger than the other changes.

  33. Justthinkin says:

    “But all the recent papers I’ve seen indicate the human influence is far larger than the other changes.”
    @numerobis……and just which one’s are they? My ‘puter must be broke,as I see zero links to any “recent papers”. Or are you referencing the ones people use on the bottom of their bird cages?

    Don…..thanks for the morning chuckle. May I also nominate a tetrajai,which is the measurement of all that missing heat,caused by a “cooked” up windmill creating more CO2 during manufacture than Pinatubo?

  34. DirkH says:

    numerobis says:
    June 23, 2013 at 9:29 am
    “But all the recent papers I’ve seen indicate the human influence is far larger than the other changes.”

    That’s how they get their funding.

  35. Latitude says:

    numerobis says:
    June 23, 2013 at 9:29 am
    But all the recent papers I’ve seen indicate the human influence is far larger than the other changes.
    ===============
    ” this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal;”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

  36. Gary Pearse says:

    “Gotta love it, cartoonist turned “climate scientist”. It’s Da bomb.”

    This I can take, it gives a measure of the activist science. That scientists are turning into cartoonists and stand-up comics is the real disgrace. Has anyone noted any disparagement of Cook’s stuff among ‘leading’ climate scientists? No, I didn’t think so. You can be a complete mindless ass as long as you support the cause. Indeed, Cook is not only elevated to climate scientist, he will be becoming the most prolific producer of climate science literature if we don’t soon see the usual suspects coming out of their bunkers. The search for missing heat (it’s a travesty), the think tank for understanding UK’s disappointing (forecasts) er.. weather, the disgraced Max Planck Institute with its climate researchers arriving in parkas in spring to study global warming….No, Cook doesn’t stand out as a lesser colleague.

  37. benfrommo says:

    Cook is a funny guy. He is no intellectual, because his favorite thing to “confirm that we are still warming” is the dreaded monthly time series….last month was the hottest month ever and the month before that was the third hottest…and so on. Basically, the moron thinks that one month of data is enough to confirm global warming is still happening and that the tried and true statistical techiniques for determining whether a trend is happening are inferior to his cherry picking methods. Like most cherry pickers, he points to the low-hanging fruit that he has found and neglects to point out the cherries he missed because he did not even consider them.

    He isn’t a scientist. He is an ice cream taste tester who is tasting ice cream cones and picking the ones he likes and than claiming to the world that since he liked the ice cream when it was the hottest that this means the world is boiling over at the rate of “4 atomic bombs every second.” Think about the depth of his intellect with that. He has as much depth as a slug does.

    And now people confuse him with a scientist? Oh that is just lovely. I have literally seen better educated slugs than this guy. If this is the pinnacle of human evolution than we are surely doomed to move back into those caves and shake with fear whenever a scary noise is made. I bet he even farts and runs for the hills thinking its an atomic bomb going off behind him.

  38. Doug Proctor says:

    Riddle me this: if the uncertainty is 17 W/m2, then how is Trenberth able to say that there is a “missing”, i.e. his math can’t account for, 0.58 W/m2, which must therefore be “hiding” in the deep ocean (’cause, argumentum ad ignoratium, he can’t think of another acceptable answer)?

    The uncertainty of climate “science” is the basis for all skepticism, yet seems to pass the warmist threshold of acceptance without a problem. There must be some cognitive dissonance going on about this, but you’d never know it.

    The non-technical, liberal arts, enviro-greens haven’t a clue when it comes to critical thinking. You don’t have to be an expert to audit what an expert says, you just have to bring normal thinking to abnormal sistuations. The world is not so bizarre that exceptional claims don’t deserve exceptional justifications.

  39. Mike Wryley on June 23, 2013 at 8:37 am
    says:-
    “Does anyone here have possible access to the climate report cooked up for government consumption mentioned on Bloomberg today “Climate by the Numbers” ? ”

    Isn’t that just the latest Draft of the IPCC’s AR5 report, according to the guys from the London School of Economics .
    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/climate-change-by-the-numbers-zz7RhAzLQJiI6plMghVQaQ.html

    or is it just the ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ ?
    Wouldn’t the Expert Reviewers know, of which there must be a few hereabouts ?

  40. Mike McMillan says:

    I think my flashlight runs about 1 watt. Scary.

    My parents were in the occupation force, but I don’t think they ever went down to Hiroshima. I visited the Peace Museum in 2007 and saw all the little mementos. The mostly wooden buildings in town didn’t fare very well, but then neither did the rest of Japan to the fire bombing.

  41. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell believes he provides ‘easy rebuttals’ to the science posted at WUWT. But he doesn’t provide anything except his wrong-headed opinion. Like the rest of his baseless assertions, his ‘easy rebuttals’ are only his personal beliefs.

    Anthony clearly explains here why comparing global warming to the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb is ridiculous; mitchel responds with his opinion. That is typical of the alarmist crowd. What we need are verifiable, testable facts — not simple-mined, baseless assertions.

    The basic fact in the entire global warming debate is that there has been no global warming for many years now, even as CO2 continues to steadily rise. How does mitchell explain this glaring discrepancy? Answer: he doesn’t, because he cannot explain it. It is obvious that any effect from CO2 is so minuscule that it is too small to be measured. The trace gas CO2 is inconsequential, and can be completely disregarded. But disregarding “carbon” destroys the basic alarmist argument. They cannot give up their demonization of CO2 without admitting they have been wrong all along.

    Note that most of mitchell’s wild-eyed rant is based on politics, not on science. But science is not ‘right wing’, or ‘conservative’. Science is the search for truth, and the fact that the alarmist crowd has no scientific truth supporting their belief causes them great consternation. The reuslt is that they flail around, and end up blaming politics for the fact that the real world does not support their belief system.

    The alarmist belief in catastrophic AGW is now based entirely on their new age religion. The Scientific Method is ignored, because following the Scientific Method requires accepting the fact that there is no measurable evidence to support the belief that CO2 causes any measurable global warming. Thus, the central tenet of the alarmist cult is deconstructed. So they respond like jai mitchell does: by blaming politics for their scientific failure.

    Honest scientists look at the failure of the CO2=AGW conjecture, and acknowledge that their original conjecture has been falsified. Honest scientists then go back to the drawing board, and try to figure out why their conjecture failed.

    But the die-hard climate alarmists dig in their heels, and try to blame politics for their scientific failure. That may work at alarmist blogs, which censor dissenting opinion. But it doesn’t work here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, where polemics like jai mitchell’s are shot down in flames.

  42. chris y says:

    Solar PV farms installed in desert locations apparently have a horrifying Hiroshima footprint as well.

    A PV panel with double AR coating absorbs 97% of incident solar radiation. Desert sand absorbs on average 65%. About 15% of the panel’s absorbed power is converted to electricity, leaving about 83% to heat the panel. Solar panels increase the 24-hour-averaged surface forcing imbalance by 1000 W/m^2*6/24 hours*(0.83-0.65) = 45 W/m^2. Over a year (about pi*10^7 seconds), this adds up to 1.4 GJ/m^2/year, or using Willis’ conversion factor of 4.18 GJ/ton TNT, about 0.33 tons TNT/year/m^2.

    The Blythe solar PV project (currently scheduled for construction after being passed about like a hot potato) will be 485MW. Using 140 W/m^2 panels, the total panel area is 485,000,000/140 = 3,460,000 m^2. The total equivalent TNT load is 1.14 million tons, or 76 Hiroshima bombs per year. That is a lot of above-ground testing!

    Nellis Air Force base has an Obama-blessed 14MW solar PV plant. Using 140 W/m^2 panels, the total area is 100,000 m^2, an equivalent TNT load of 33,000 tons per year, or about 2 Hiroshima bombs per year.

    Fortunately, these are in relatively low population areas, so the human impacts should be minimal.

    It is remarkable that a flimsy solar panel can withstand a close-proximity detonation of almost 1 ton of TNT every year…

    I shudder to calculate the Hiroshimas per year in densely populated regions contributed by rooftop solar. Perhaps it would be wise to ban the use of solar arrays on buildings that have been designated as fallout shelters…

  43. commieBob says:

    While we’re at it, how about we calculate a car’s mileage in miles per stick of dynamite.
    dynamite 4 MJ/kg
    gasoline 35 MJ/L
    So, for ease of arithmetic, every liter of gasoline is equivalent to ten kg of dynamite. So … every kilometer you drive is like exploding two pounds of dynamite. A thousand kilometers uses about a ton of dynamite. I drive about 20 tons a year worth of dynamite.

  44. andrewmharding says:

    Jai just wondering about your absence and up you pop!
    Anyway we are not right wing hang ‘em and flog ‘em types who don’t give a tinkers cuss about the planet and people, far from it. I object most strongly to old people here in the UK dying from hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes due to the vast subsidies going to renewable energy sources. I take it you think these deaths are necessary to support The Cause? I also don’t want my country turned into a third world nation because our economy has gone belly up, due to inflation going sky high because of energy costs.

    Here is a question I posted on another thread to you which has not been answered.

    “Jai, if the world was 8C warmer in the past with CO2 levels virtually identical to what they are now, why is the world not 8C warmer now? There is only one answer; because there are other more important factors that influence climate. Tilt of the Earth’s axis as mentioned before being one, solar output, clouds, water vapour, volcanic eruptions being others.
    Do you accept this?”

    Sorry Anthony, I know you don’t like intermingling of the threads, but I think we are all fed up of Jai doing a disappearing act every time the questions become difficult and I think this is a tough one to answer if you believe in AGW.

  45. dp says:

    Being a cartoonist isn’t a bad thing (Think Josh :) ) but if Cook was as bad a cartoonist as he is a climate scientist it is no wonder he keeps changing avocations. It’s too bad there’s not a lot of money to be made just being an idiot. Oh – wait…

    Speaking of people with poor communication skills – Jai, convinced against abundant evidence otherwise that he alone is capable of rational thought, walks into a saloon and tells everyone gathered they’re paranoid ignorant anti-science morons who need to just shut up. After the ass-whoopin’ he gets up and shrieks “I’m not getting through to you morons!”

  46. Tom Moriarty says:

    Cook is correct, and the CFL bulbs in my basement are like the detonation of a pound of TNT every day!
    see…
    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/its-even-worse-than-al-gore-said/

  47. @ Jai Mitchell

    Nice rant. That must have been the highest density of name-calling masquerading as discussion ever to “grace” this blog.

    If you spend any amount of time here reading, not just posting, then you will notice that this is a remarkably open and tolerant venue, and that people from all walks of life, educational backgrounds and political persuasions post here (although it is probably correct that most posters are politically conservative); the audience here does not fit any of your stereotypes.

    Regarding the quality of the information here: While there is some hit and miss in both in the posts and the comments, you can find some genuine gems produced by people with exceptional scientific understanding, both with and without formal credentials. Just keep an open mind and think twice about wantonly insulting the other posters, and you might actually benefit yourself and others with your posts.

  48. DirkH says:

    Michael Moon says:
    June 23, 2013 at 8:41 am
    “Thus, it will thermalize this IR, heating the atmosphere a little, to the extent that one part in 2,500 can heat the rest. This is the real GHE! Of course water vapor does this too, a lot lot more than CO2.”

    Now you’re in Dessler territory (his favorite term is “heat-trapping gases”).
    Thermalization and dethermalization must happen to equal amounts under LTE conditions.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

  49. Solar Panel Warming says:

    @chris y
    “A PV panel with double AR coating absorbs 97% of incident solar radiation. Desert sand absorbs on average 65%. About 15% of the panel’s absorbed power is converted to electricity, leaving about 83% to heat the panel.”

    Actually the 15% delivered as electricity is turned back into heat when “used”. So the panels are actually absorbing an additional 18% (83% – 65%) of solar energy for air heating that would normally be reflected. So the panels are in fact making the temperature rise worse if this is taken into account. Now I am sure that this could be converted to CO2 & fossil fuel equivalents, which I’m certain that no one has considered but obviously would make then not as attractive from a global warming viewpoint.

  50. Tom Wiita says:

    I note that the stated TOA imbalance of 0.6 +/- 0.4 at the top of the figure is unsupported by the other uncertainties stated on the same figure. For example. The outgoing longwave stated uncertainty is +/- 3.3. The reflected solar uncertainty is +/- 2, not 0.2. If those uncertainties are correct, the imbalance uncertainty has to be greater than +/- 3.3 since the other uncertainties accumulate, and increase the uncertainty. The incoming radiation is the only quantity on the figure known to high certainty, the others are not.

  51. DirkH says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 23, 2013 at 8:11 am
    “In sharing the absolutely easy rebuttals to the insane ruminations coming out of this blog, by people who are given editorial rights here, I hope to show to the public viewing this site just how closed off (censoring my comments) and ignorant (how easy is this for someone with just an engineer’s background in physics to show the idiocy of these theories!) your theories and arguments are.”

    Jai, you have a misconception there. Most of us don’t say, look the theory is obviously wrong because my engineer’s degree physics education tells me it is. In fact, the idea that added CO2 should lead to some warming, all other things being equal, is not disputed by many of us. The problem is that all other things do not stay equal.

    So what would one do to find out how the system will behave? Well, do an experiment. If an experiment is impossible, simulate an experiment with a computer model. That’s what the climate scientists did. And we all know that over the last 17 years reality and climate models develop differently.

    Now what does the guy say who started all this serious climate modeling business… Remember the tropospheric hotspot that all the climate models predict and that has not yet been observed?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/12/our-sustainable-mirth/#comment-765890
    “when even Dr.Syukuro Manabe, the godfather of climate modeling, now agrees with Fred Singer that it’s not there (see Fu, 2011) and that climate models overstate the warming by 2 to 4 times. ”

    …he says that models overstate the warming. Now, if people like you were able to actually listen to the inventor of climate modeling, maybe you could accept the non-warming reality.

    Maybe that would not fit to your political leanings, because maybe you just love carbon taxes and PV subsidies.
    “You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” (Ayn Rand)

  52. Michael Moon says:

    DirkH,

    Consider this a failure to engage. The atmosphere is not in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, and if there is such a thing, why did Professor Smith at U of M never mention it to us? He was Professor of the Year, designed the first in-cylinder combustion probe for Ford.

    I think the word you are looking for is “adiabatic,” and the atmosphere is not that either…

  53. Billy says:

    Jai;

    I keep a bird on my shoulder. He has a left wing and a right wing. Am I bi-wing or ambidextrous wing?

  54. Clyde says:

    dealt with this nonsense before, back in May 2012

    The hyper link above leads to a page not found.

  55. Clyde says:

    Now it’s working. Must be my browser. My apologies.

  56. Snotrocket says:

    OK Jai, WTF is ‘anti-science’? (Other than what you preach). Yawnnnn….

  57. Justthinkin says:

    Is jai mitchell cook posting under a pseudonym,or the other way around? Just curious.

    REPLY: he appears to be using a real name, see: http://www.facebook.com/jai.j.mitchell

    -A

  58. Gunga Din says:

    I found some of the things here interesting.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29
    I noticed the number put up for AGW energy is marked “citation needed”.
    I also noticed that the number doesn’t have a time span (as in “X Joules/day) but that it is more than the Sun puts out in a day.

  59. Gunga Din says:

    From the wiki link above :”10−1 deci- (dJ) 1×10−1 J energy of an American half-dollar falling 1-metre[49][50]”
    This can’t be right since the US dollar is getting “lighter” by the second.

  60. EternalOptimist says:

    When I was a kid in school, I used to get a clip round the ear for not putting the units of measure on my answers.
    ‘FOUR ? FOUR WHAT ? ELEPHANTS OR ZEBRAS ?’ smack.

    four miles sir.

    In those days, we had imperial, metric and some anomalies.

    Nowadays, it seems that we have imperial, metric , Atom bombs per second, CIPH (Conspiricy Ideationists per Hectare), GPM (Gleiks per set of minutes)

    I am just glad to be a three percenter

  61. Gunga Din says:

    “I also noticed that the number doesn’t have a time span (as in “X Joules/day) but that it is more than the Sun puts out in a day.”
    ===========================================================
    That should be more than what the Sun puts out hits the Earth in a day.

  62. DiogenesNJ says:

    Be fair. Cook says right on his “About” page that he’s not a climate scientist. He does, however, hold a degree in physics, so poking fun at him as a “cartoonist” is unreasonable.

    Disagree with him on the facts; fine; but let’s skip the ad hominem. Leave that for the other side.

    REPLY: Sorry, but I disagree. When he allows the label “climate scientist” to stand in newspaper articles, he loses any such consideration. Note that Donna Laframboise points out in the linked article that there seems to be a pattern of escalation of his labels – Anthony

  63. Auto says:

    Michael Palmer says:

    June 23, 2013 at 11:02 am

    @ Jai Mitchell

    Nice rant. That must have been the highest density of name-calling masquerading as discussion ever to “grace” this blog.

    =====
    Thanks – saved me from bloviating about it.

    Auto

  64. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I would like to know:

    1 – what is the energy equivalent of switching on half the light-bulbs in the world?
    2 – what is the energy equivalent of all the thunderstorms in the world?

    Both of these are things that happen on a regular basis. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that they are actually greater than ’4 Hiroshimas’. In which case we’d better stop turning lights on, and find a way to stop thunderstorms…

  65. davidmhoffer says:

    To “jai mitchell”

    I asked on another thread if you could explain the terminology you were throwing around. You never responded, so I shall repeat the question here. Can you explain in your own words what “polar amplification” is, and the physics by which it is expected to exist? Or are you just throwing around terms without actually knowing what they mean?

    If you are so certain that you understand the science and the rest of us don’t, then let’s see what you got. Let’s discuss the science and see who knows what.

  66. Gunga Din says:

    Dodgy Geezer says:
    June 23, 2013 at 12:59 pm
    ===============================================================
    Hmmm….if CO2 is the driver and Man-made CO2 is what we need to curb….(thinking)….there are athetic events going on all over the world……(thinking)……..most of them require humans to excert some sort of physical effort….(thinking again)…….those efforts produce CO2…(increased breathing)…maybe the answer to AGW is to ban sporting events?

  67. milodonharlani says:

    Gunga Din says:
    June 23, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    The goal of CACCA is not to ban breathing by humans (at least not by everyone), but to tax it.

  68. StephenP says:

    Justin Gillis in the New York Times International Weekly (distributed with the Observer in the UK) quotes the 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day, without any reference as to the source.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?ref=justingillis&_r=0

  69. Russell says:

    [Snip. Russell Seitz is <persona non grata here. — mod.]

  70. SadButMadLad says:

    As EternalOptimist at 12:39 pm says “Nowadays, it seems that we have imperial, metric , Atom bombs per second, CIPH (Conspiricy Ideationists per Hectare), GPM (Gleiks per set of minutes)”

    Maybe we need even more units of measurement. Such as the ones the BBC use to try and make something more understandable, but fail spectacularly to do so. Like something is the size of ten double decker buses or the size of a dozen olympic swimming pools. They mean nothing because the original measurement means nothing. They are such a joke that El Reg (The Register) has a whole section devoted to these measurement units.

    So, what’s the velocity of a sheep in a vacuum? Plus, the size of Wales in cubic furlongs.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/

  71. Doug Huffman says:

    “Thunderstorms” made me recall a note in my well thumbed 61th Edition CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, page F-215, “1000 to 2000 thunderstorms active at any time. … Water content 10^8 – 10^9 kg. Total energy 10^15 joule, electric energy 10^12 – 10^13 J.” And that is note as quoted from Atmospheric Electricity by H. Israel.

    The water content of a million tons in a thundercloud puts lots of stuff in perspective.

  72. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Maybe we could create a ‘Beaufort’ Scale of climate fails/ramblings? perhaps using the usual suspects as names for the different levels? I dunno, maybe starting with a ‘Jones aka Level 1′ – meaning a mild faux pas such as ‘can’t use excel’? Am tempted to suggest Cook as the highest, but there are many contenders – Mann and Gore immediately spring to mind!
    Just a thought, maybe we could call it the Climatic Reporting Anti-science Presentation value or (C.R.A.P) for short?

  73. Max™ says:

    Well that’s nothing, the 1960 Valdivia Earthquake released a similar amount of energy as a 210 Gigaton nuke going off, that’s like 14,000,000 Hiroshima bombs! Oh heavens to murgatroid!

    What about starquakes? Some of those are estimated to range into Yottatons of TNT equivalent! What’s a Yottaton? Well, it’s like a Lottatons, but more so, and it makes Teratons look puny.

    The KT impact event would have registered around a 12.5 on the Richter scale, apparently, which is around 100 Teratons of TNT equivalent, magnetar quakes would apparently register 20 to 30+ on the Richter scale?

    That’s not a “bye bye city” or “bye bye continent” event, that’s a “goodbye planet, we barely knew ye” type event.

    Now how can we finagle that into a way to make people afraid of CO2?

  74. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @Doug Huffman

    …“1000 to 2000 thunderstorms active at any time. … Water content 10^8 – 10^9 kg. Total energy 10^15 joule, electric energy 10^12 – 10^13 J.” And that is note as quoted from Atmospheric Electricity by H. Israel..

    Um. so, working in orders of magnitude, thunderstorms are the equivalent of about 100 A-bombs per day. And global warming is 4000 times as big.

    I wonder why I haven’t felt it yet?

  75. PaddikJ says:

    Cam_S says:

    June 23, 2013 at 7:36 am
    Whenever somebody starts comparing the damage of global warming to atomic bombs, I say…

    As human beings, we can adapt to a few degrees of temperature. But we cannot adapt to nuclear radiation.

    Nonsense. There is no such thing as “nuclear radiation”; there is only radiation, whether from a thermonuclear bomb or a toaster oven (or the sun).

  76. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I’ve found a ‘green’ site which claims that our energy usage across the planet is… well, here’s teh quote:

    …Global energy consumption for 2006 was a staggering 507 exajoules [5.07E+20 joules, the equivalent to the energy released by detonating 9.3 million Hiroshima-sized A-bombs throughout the year at the rate of 25,437 bombs each day, or one bomb for every 718 people.]..

    Um. Our TOTAL energy usage is the same as 25,000 bombs a day, and yet the extra forcing is 400,000 bombs per day? Interesting…

  77. davidmhoffer says:

    jai m
    The scientific fact is that the .6 watts per meter squared of additional heat energy calculated as being the minimum of current warming going on IS equal to that number of Hiroshima bombs going off every day in the earth’s atmosphere. This is how one effectively shows what that amount of energy represents.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    While we’re waiting for your explanation of polar amplification, which you’ve now been asked for twice and not a peep, perhaps you could also explain your statement above? A nuclear bomb converts mass to energy, and hence adds energy to the planet, but only temporarily since this increases radiance to space until equilibrium is once against restored and energy in = energy out exactly the same as before the explosion. Similarly, doubling CO2 temporarily adds energy to the earth system which suppresses radiance to space temporarily, until equilibrium is restored and energy in = energy out, same as before CO2 doubled.

    So, the effective black body temperature of the earth once equilibrium is reached is exactly identical. The processes by which additional energy are injected into the earth system are both temporary, but from a physics perspective, they are actually opposite processes.

    Can you explain jai why both result in the exact same effective black body temperature despite being opposite processes, and why one at equilibrium results in a higher surface temperature but not the other?

    Do you even know what “effective black body temperature” means? Can you explain it?

  78. Max™ says:

    Usually when someone says “nuclear radiation” they mean “ionizing radiation” as I doubt they would use such a vague term to specifically mean alpha particles, which are helium nuclei.

  79. William McClenney says:

    Seems we have evolved from:

    “Trust but verify”

    to possibly two camps:

    “Trust and vilify”

    and

    “Verify before trust.”

    The difference being how one filters and absorbs information. In this instance perhaps analogous to a rotating polarizing lens. If you leave your lens in one polarization as your only input, then that is all you have to go on. In the other, the same. Rotating the lens provides a continuous change in perspective, which should trigger re-analysis of what you are seeing.

    The process of verification, the application of rational thought as the filter to changing perceptions. So you either accept a particular polarized perception without perspective thought (verification), or you are always rotating the “thinking lens”.

    Polarization, of course, restricts things to vibrate in one plane. It does not restrict the frequency of those vibrations unless they are not vibrating in that plane. Or color.

    So the color of our polarization can vary even within a single polarzation.

    Which brings us to the color red: vilify. Being restricted to vibrate in a single plane and in a single color such as red (center of a watermelon for instance) restricts bandwidth to a very narrow data band. Necessarily affecting what there is to absorb.

    I cite Jai, for instance, meaning no offense, but to demonstrate perhaps endpoints of the human spectrum:

    From:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3931.pdf

    “We show how the prevailing majority opinion in a population can be rapidly reversed by a small fraction p of randomly distributed committed agents who consistently proselytize the opposing opinion and are immune to influence. Specifically, we show that when the committed fraction grows beyond a critical value pc ≈ 10%, there is a dramatic decrease in the time Tc taken for the entire population to adopt the committed opinion.

    “Human behavior is profoundly affected by the influenceability of individuals and the social networks that link them together. Well before the proliferation of online social networking, offline or interpersonal social networks have been acknowledged as a major factor in determining how societies move toward consensus in the adoption of ideologies, traditions, and attitudes [1,2]. As a result, the dynamics of social influence has been heavily studied in sociological, physics, and computer science literature [3–7]. In the sociological context, work on diffusion of innovations has emphasized how individuals adopt new states in behavior, opinion, or consumption through the influence of their neighbors. Commonly used models for this process include the threshold model [8] and the Bass model [9]. A key feature in both these models is that once an individual adopts the newstate, his state remains unchanged at all subsequent times.

    “In closing, we have demonstrated here the existence of a tipping point at which the initial majority opinion of a network switches quickly to that of a consistent and inflexible minority. There are several historical precedents for such events, for example, the suffragette movement in the early 20th century, and the rise of the American civil-rights movement that started shortly after the size of the African-American population crossed the 10% mark.”

    “HIS STATE REMAINS UNCHANGED AT ALL SUBSEQUENT TIMES (caps mine)”. Polarization.

    So the questions for each of us are simply this. Do you believe whatever you are told? Do you believe whatever you are told on a particular subject? Do you bother to verify (rotate your lens)? Can you reach a conclusion given even the most simple facts?

    Relating all of this to the article, and in considering an even wider range of things than the speed at which I can type, the analytics of what Mr. Cook has espoused do not seem to withstand the numeric scrutiny (verification) Anthony and others have provided in the light of other rotations of the lens of knowledge (wider spectrum of information). In terms of disproving a hypothesis or theory, ones data and conclusions should at least reasonably constitute an anomaly. None is apparent here.

    Beyond this is just vilification.

  80. Gunga Din says:

    Max™ says:
    June 23, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    Usually when someone says “nuclear radiation” they mean “ionizing radiation” as I doubt they would use such a vague term to specifically mean alpha particles, which are helium nuclei.

    ======================================================
    But working in the word “nuclear” sound so much scarier .. and keeps “Man” in the equation.

  81. PatK says:

    Chris Y., it is even worse than you conclude, because even that energy converted into electricity will eventually be converted to heat as it is used to perform work, heat homes, etc. Now does it displace fossil fuels, nuclear, water, etc.? Possibly. But ultimately it is more energy into the system.

    It too, however, is so down in the mud as to be negligible in the big picture.

  82. Max™ says:

    Never could understand why nuclear is a scary word, bomb is scary by itself, adding it to anything just about would make it scarier (I suppose kitten bomb wouldn’t be scary to anyone except dwarf fortress players, huh?) but nuclear by itself? I’d rather live near a nuclear power plant than a coal power plany any day, I’ve worked a brief stint cleaning out some of the dust collection plates in a coal plant, spending half an hour each night just getting dust off of/out of my skin and pores was bad enough, but starting to develop a mild cough after a week there? Yeah, $1000 a week is awesome when you’re 19… but not THAT awesome.

  83. jai mitchell says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    June 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    jai m
    The scientific fact is that the .6 watts per meter squared of additional heat energy calculated as being the minimum of current warming going on IS equal to that number of Hiroshima bombs going off every day in the earth’s atmosphere. This is how one effectively shows what that amount of energy represents.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    While we’re waiting for your explanation of polar amplification, which you’ve now been asked for twice and not a peep,
    ————-
    RESPONSE
    I’m sorry I get asked a lot of questions here, not sure which one you mean. the fact that there is polar amplification shouldn’t be a suprise to you or anyone.

    I have posted peer review documentation that shows the arctic temperature will rise by 5-8C once the sea ice melts. That is probably what your question is about. Well there you have it.

    decreased albedo and absorption of the suns energy in the arctic sea is the cause of the temperature increase, you probably don’t realize that the amount of solar energy hitting the earth’s surface north of the arctic circle right now per day is more than the amount of solar energy hitting the tropics per day right now (summer solstice)
    —————–

    perhaps you could also explain your statement above? A nuclear bomb converts mass to energy, and hence adds energy to the planet, but only temporarily since this increases radiance to space until equilibrium is once against restored and energy in = energy out exactly the same as before the explosion.

    ————-

    RESPONSE
    ok

    ————-

    Similarly, doubling CO2 temporarily adds energy to the earth system which suppresses radiance to space temporarily,

    ————–

    RESPONSE
    sorry, no not temporarily, the suppressed radiance to space is permanently changed until the concentration of CO2 is reduced.

    ————–

    until equilibrium is restored and energy in = energy out, same as before CO2 doubled.

    —————

    RESPONSE
    Sorry, no, energy in never changes, energy in is based on solar insolation, unless you artificially dim the sun (as in a space-based shielding device) or artificially increase the reflectance of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere (by artificially increasing the amount of aluminum oxide at the upper altitude via high-altitude deposition) you will have the same energy in as we always have

    Energy out difference only occurs once the temperature increases enough that MORE infrared wavelength radiation is emitted and the amount of heat energy lost to space reaches the new equilibrium. .. hence. . .global warming.

    ————————–

    So, the effective black body temperature of the earth once equilibrium is reached

    —————-

    RESPONSE
    once equilibrium is reached once the surface of the earth increases in temperature enough that the amount of heat energy re-reflected down from the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to the increase in heat energy that is emitted due to an increase in surface temperature??? ok . . go on. . .

    ——————-

    is exactly identical. The processes by which additional energy are injected into the earth system are both temporary, but from a physics perspective, they are actually opposite processes.

    ——————–

    RESPONSE
    similarly, your body gives off a steady amount of heat energy, when you lay beneath a blanket the air space between your body and the blanket reaches an equilibrium. put on more blankets and the temperature goes up. because heat OUT slows down and HEAT IN (your body’s respiration producing heat) stays the same

    Until the difference in temperature under the blanket reaches a high enough temperature and balance is restored (at a higher temperature)

    ———————

    Can you explain jai why both result in the exact same effective black body temperature despite being opposite processes, and why one at equilibrium results in a higher surface temperature but not the other?
    ————————-
    response
    Because CO2 acts as an additional blanket

    ——————–

    Do you even know what “effective black body temperature” means? Can you explain it?

    —————

    RESPONSE
    yes, and I have a basic conceptual understand of the physics behind global warming as determined by Svante Arrhenius back in 1893 when he calculated,

    “any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

    ————————–

    Now I have a question for you.

    are you a regular poster, reader of this site, if this site is such an authority on the greenhouse effect and global warming, why is it that you seem to lack the most basic level of conceptual understanding of the science of climate change?

    and

    the reason that the Hiroshima bomb analogy is a good one is because the number of bomb explosions KEEPS happening every day over and over, it is a net increase in the energy deposition on the surface of the earth.

    by the way if you took all of that energy an had 90% of that energy go into heating the ocean, about 8% heating the land and about 2% heating the atmosphere, you wouldn’t notice that much warming AND you would have much more variability if the ocean decided to take a small amount of extra heat for 15 years or so. . .

  84. Bob says:

    0.6 +/- 17? You gotta hand it to post-doctoral (w/o doctoral) climate scientists. Most of us laymen would have thought that indistinguishable from 0. I was so intrigued by this wisdom that I read Jo Nova’s blog and then looked Mr. Cook up. It all confirmed my awe of climate science and the true believers. Now for another not-so-wee dram of single malt so that I’m in the proper condition to fully appreciate Mr. Cook’s wisdom.

  85. Cam_S says:

    Cam_S says:

    June 23, 2013 at 7:36 am
    Whenever somebody starts comparing the damage of global warming to atomic bombs, I say…

    As human beings, we can adapt to a few degrees of temperature. But we cannot adapt to nuclear radiation.

    PaddikJ says:

    Nonsense. There is no such thing as “nuclear radiation”; there is only radiation, whether from a thermonuclear bomb or a toaster oven (or the sun).

    I call BS!
    There is a huge spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. You can’t tell me that the infrared radiation from my toaster oven is the same as a Hiroshima type bomb being dropped on my town, producing high dose gamma radiation and neutron radiation.
    And that’s the point that John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli are trying to make, isn’t it? The CAGW crowd wants the public to equate catastrophic global warming with nuclear armageddon.

  86. KevinM says:

    Max, I think the same thing. There might be a regime change as the present ruling class ages out.

    One pet hypothesis of mine is the TMI scare caught the hippies just as they were cutting back on pot and figuring out how to raise toddlers. People who were twenty-something in the Kennedy-Nixon-Vietnam-cold war-silent spring-population bomb-Beatles break up era are just now reaching the end of their peak political and economic influence.

    The generation coming into power appears to be the Atari-Nintendo-play station-Iran contra- Berlin Wall – MTV era. They seem more interested in healthcare and phone aps than militarism and industry. I’m betting they are less adamant about nuke plants and third world invasions.

  87. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell says:

    … if you took all of that energy an had 90% of that energy go into heating the ocean [arbitrary speculation], about 8% heating the land and about 2% heating the atmosphere, you wouldn’t notice that much warming AND you would have much more variability if the ocean decided to take a small amount of extra heat for 15 years or so…

    We are now well past your “15 years”, and global warming remains stopped. But like other climate alarmists, you cannot admit that your conjecture has been falsified.

    I would ask you what it would take to falsify your belief, but I have asked that same question of quite a few others in the alarmist crowd. The one time someone answered, he said it would be another twenty years before he would be willing to re-think his belief system. That, of course, is ridiculous.

    By now any honest scientist will admit that the CO2=AGW conjecture has been falsified. The only ones who do not admit it are those who have a supernatural belief fueling their conjecture. That is not science; that is religion.

    I suggest you post on religious blogs instead, since you have no understanding of how the Scientific Method, or the Null Hypothesis works. Your belief system has no basis in objective science. It has been debunked. Deconstructed. Falsified.

    CO2 is simply not the magic gas you believe it to be. Its effect has been exhausted in the first 20 ppm, and at this point any added CO2 has an effect that is just too minuscule to measure.

  88. Jai, you have had two days to reply to the question I originally asked you on a previous thread and repeated on this thread five hours ago, you have provided me with neither an answer, nor an acknowledgement of the question. This leads me to believe that your “science” is either wrong or not a subject for debate; ie it is still wrong. You have had every opportunity to debate AGW many times on this website, but at each time this opportunity has been turned into the usual illogical rant, characteristic of AGW supporters. Personally I do not have a problem with anyone, pro AGW or not, posting on this, or any other website, however I do have a problem if they cannot present their case rationally, which obviously you cannot.
    You have had more opportunities to present and debate your views on this website than I would have had on the AGW websites; I would have been totally censored, because as you have so ably demonstrated, AGW is not debatable, because scientifically, it is wrong, only the belief in it is right!
    I do not debate beliefs!

  89. jai mitchell says:

    Andrewmharding

    sorry, I wasn’t ignoring you, I promise the thing is, you answered your own question. I didn’t think you actually wanted an answer. Since you apparently do, I will answer.

    “Jai, if the world was 8C warmer in the past with CO2 levels virtually identical to what they are now, why is the world not 8C warmer now? ”

    —————-

    The reason is quite complex. The short answer is that we are currently warming. It will take about 500 years before the earth reaches a new equilibrium. an additional 3.7Watts/meter squared on the surface of the earth is only a small increase from the 1,377 Watts per meter squared that the earth gets from the sun every day. The oceans circulate at depth and the effect of the ocean won’t reach equilibrium for a very long time.

    That is the short answer.

    the longer answer involves the change in the summer ice arctic albedo and the ability for the earth to produce lots of surface and subsea carbonaceous material (imagine the entire northern hemisphere covered in Nordic pine all the way to the arctic ocean and blooms of plankton so rich that the oceans have over 10,000 times the current mass of carbon-rich life organisms. How much extra carbon does all of those creatures hold by weight? (about half of the dry weight of a single tree can be considered carbon dioxide sequestered)

    The simple fact that these temperatures are going up at such an incredibly fast rate now is that the slow growth/spread of trees and sea life won’t possibly make up for the rapid release (relatively–over several hundred years) of arctic methane and CO2 trapped in the earth.

    in addition, the increase of drought and fire in current wetland, the drying and burning of boreal peat (carbon that was put into the earth during the last 10,000 years) and the change in chemistry composition of the arctic seas, preventing them from further sequestering carbon dioxide will lead to much higher future CO2 levels. So, the long term equilibrium will actually be more than 8C if we don’t change the situation right away.

    ————–

    The amount of heat difference between the peak and trough of the Milankovich cycle is actually much less than can possibly produce the 8C temperature difference it has always been assumed that something else had to contribute to the additional warming/cooling and THAT is why CO2 LAGS temperature in the climate cycle.

    because as the sun’s energy increases (milankovich) the co2 emissions increase and THAT is what causes additional temperature warming, always in steady equilibrium until the sun warms some more (slowly over thousands of years in the milankovich cycle)

    ——-

    Their analysis indicates that CO2 concentrations and Antarctic temperature were tightly coupled throughout the deglaciation, within a quoted uncertainty of less than 200 years,” says commentator Edward J. Brook, of Oregon State University, Corvallis.
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-levels-are-more-tightly-linked

  90. jai mitchell says:

    somewhere between the second seal and the first woe. . .

    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg

  91. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell,

    Astonishing. Now global armageddon has been pushed out 200 – 500 years! Of course, this flies in the face of the endless alarmist predictions of runaway global warming that were made with regularity.

    This is a classic case of moving the goal posts. Anything can happen in 500 years, so your ridiculous speculation covers all possible eventualities. That is not science, that is witchcraft.

    Predictions of runaway global warming were regularly made throughout the 1990′s and early 2000′s. But now that global warming has stopped, rather than admit that conjecture was falsified, the time frame has been pushed out so far that it can never be verified; not even your great-grandchildren will be around to point out how silly those predictions are.

    You would salvage some credibility if you possessed basic honesty. Instead, your position has become so ridiculous that nobody accepts it. The fact is that the natural warming trend since the LIA has remained on the same long-term trend line; there has been no acceleration in the warming trend, despite the 40% rise in CO2. Is your refusal to admit that you were wrong so important to you that you are willing to forfeit any remaining credibility to maintrain the Narrative?

  92. DaveA says:

    Jai’s a silly sausage isn’t he. Cook quotes energy in absolute terms using emotive units unrelated to the domain; Anthony quotes the same quantity in standard units relative to its domain.

    Who’s being deceptive Jai?

  93. Patrick says:

    “Justthinkin says:

    June 23, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Is jai mitchell cook posting under a pseudonym,or the other way around? Just curious.

    REPLY: he appears to be using a real name, see: http://www.facebook.com/jai.j.mitchell

    -A”

    This “Jai” likes “The Consensus Project”, a Cook classic at SkS. Explains a few things if you are correct Anthony.

  94. davidmhoffer says:

    jai mitchell
    I have posted peer review documentation that shows the arctic temperature will rise by 5-8C once the sea ice melts. That is probably what your question is about. Well there you have it.

    I asked you why polar amplification is expected to exist, and the physics that gives us reason to expect it to exist. I asked you to explain in your own words. Linking to things that other people have written demonstrates that you can link to things that other people have written. It says nothing about your comprehension of what they wrote, or that you have the technical skills to read what they wrote critically.

    The answer is that equilibrium temperature is defined by Stefan-Boltzmann Law of physics, the formula for which is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with P in watts/m2 and T in degrees Kelvin. If you do the math, you’ll discover that raising the temperature of something at -40C requires only 2.9 additional w/m2 while raising the temperature of something at +40 C requires an additional 7.0 w/m2. So any given amount of increased energy flux should be expected to raise cold temperatures (ie polar) more than warm temperatures (ie equatorial). Learn this formula because it is fundamental to the science.

    decreased albedo and absorption of the suns energy in the arctic sea is the cause of the temperature increase,

    Well it is more complicated than that jai. The albedo of open water at low angles of incidence is higher than that of water. So less ice coverage means less insolation absorbed, not more over the course of a year. Also, open water and land surface also are much warmer than ice and snow which by definition cannot exceed melting temperature of 0 C. Look at the formula for SB Law above. If the ice and snow are gone from the water surface and the land surface, the amount of energy radiated to space increases substantially, resulting in a cooling response in excess of the warming that caused it. I suggest you examine the ERBE data http://eos.atmos.washington.edu/cgi-bin/erbe/disp.pl?net.ann. which shows quite conclusively that the equatorial regions are net absorbers of energy and the polar regions are net losers of energy. Combine this with SB Law and you will see that equatorial temps will rise a lot less than polar temps (as the IPCC themselves admit) and the cooling response of the polar regions makes massive temperature rises very difficult to achieve.

    Similarly, doubling CO2 temporarily adds energy to the earth system which suppresses radiance to space temporarily,
    ————–
    RESPONSE
    sorry, no not temporarily, the suppressed radiance to space is permanently changed until the concentration of CO2 is reduced.

    Oh dear no. Not even close. Not even the IPCC makes such a claim. I suggest you read Chapter 2 of AR4 very carefully so that you understand what the science you think you know so well actually says. I suggest you start here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html

    You will see very quickly that the equilibrium temperature changes by precisely zero. What changes is the temperature profile between earth surface and TOA, with TOA becoming slightly cooler and earth surface becoming slightly warmer. But the net radiation absorbed and the net radiation emitted at equilibrium are precisely the same. This is why I asked you if you understood what the effective black body temperature meant. You should get an understanding of this concept before explaining it (wrongly) to others.

    Because CO2 acts as an additional blanket

    Oh dear, that’s a terrible over simplification. First of all, a blanket also supresses convection which CO2 doesn’t. Second a blanket warms against your body partly by radiance from your body and partly by conduction from your body. CO2 as a well mixed trace gas acts very differently, the “blanket” analogy is a very primitive and misleading analogy. Crack some spectroscopy text books and you’ll see what I mean.

    Do you even know what “effective black body temperature” means? Can you explain it?

    RESPONSE
    yes, and I have a basic conceptual understand of the physics behind global warming as determined by Svante Arrhenius back in 1893 when he calculated,

    “any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°”

    Well your answer demonstrates clearly that you don’t. The effective black body temperature of the earth is the temperature as seen from space and is taken neither at the surface nor at the TOA. You quote Arrhenius calculations in response, not realising that these had nothing to do with the effective black body temperature of the earth. You are also quoting a number which even alarmist physicists will tell you is 4 times larger at a bare minimum than the physics predicts. The general consensus among both warmist and skeptic physicists today is that direct warming from a doubling of CO2 at earth surface, with the bulk of it coming in the polar regions in winter at night time lows and almost none at day time highs in the tropics is an average of about 1 degree. If you’re going to quote what he science says, then quote what the current consensus from your own side, which is 1 degree. If you read Ch2 of AR4 as I suggested, you’ll see that I am correct on this. Larger numbers that you see quoted include feedbacks, which AR4 estimates to be an additional 1 to 3.5 degrees and which AR5 will most likely estimate at less than half of that.

    Now I have a question for you.

    are you a regular poster, reader of this site, if this site is such an authority on the greenhouse effect and global warming, why is it that you seem to lack the most basic level of conceptual understanding of the science of climate change?

    Yes I am a regular, and I have spent countless hours on this site explaining to people who think that the GHE doesn’t exist at all that in fact it exists, we can easily prove that it exists. When you get off your high horse, you’ll discover that the skeptic community is largely in agreement with this and that we are far better versed in what the physics and the science actually say (versus what people like you THINK it says) than are most warmists. What we disagree on is the magnitude of the feedbacks, and the costs of mitigation versus adaptation. We are skeptical of the measures being proposed to combat global warming not because we don’t understand the science, but because we do.

    the reason that the Hiroshima bomb analogy is a good one is because the number of bomb explosions KEEPS happening every day over and over, it is a net increase in the energy deposition on the surface of the earth.</i?

    Well there you go again, three glaring errors in a single sentence. The Hiroshima bomb's energy in the context of the earth's temperature changes it, rounded off to ten decimal places, by zero degrees. The process by which it injects energy into the system is precisely opposite of what CO2 does. And once agaim get familiar with SB Law before you make claims that even the IPCC doesn't make.

    by the way if you took all of that energy an had 90% of that energy go into heating the ocean, about 8% heating the land and about 2% heating the atmosphere, you wouldn’t notice that much warming AND you would have much more variability if the ocean decided to take a small amount of extra heat for 15 years or so. . .

    Oh dear. That’s not what the IPCC says, that’s not what the CRU says, that’s not what NASA says. Why is it jai that you claim we skeptics don’t know what the science says, and then you make claims that the scientists you claim to be supporting don’t? I suggest you read up on the research of Jones, Trenberth, Hansen and others to find out what claims they are actually making, what claims the IPCC is actually making, and then come back to defend those claims. What you are defending now is a fiction based on your misunderstanding of over simplified talking points.

  95. davidmhoffer says:

    mods ~ i blew an end italics at:

    net increase in the energy deposition on the surface of the earth.</i?

    question mark instead of a closed bracket. No need to fix it, just letting you know where it is in case it messes up following comments.

  96. Gail Combs says:

    “…equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Say What?

    There are only two sources of heat. Sunlight and the heat from the core of the planet so the earth can not “gain extra energy” All a GHG like water vapor does is modify the temperature making the highs lower and the lows higher with a net lower temperature since some of the sunlight gets bounced back to outer space. see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1040071
    and
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1041066

  97. davidmhoffer says:

    dbstealey;
    Astonishing. Now global armageddon has been pushed out 200 – 500 years!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Hysterical, is it not? On the one hand he wants to claim that rapid temperature increases are proof positive that the world is warming, and on the other hand that they happen over a period of 500 years (so very slowly) as an explanation as to why we haven’t seen measurable warming for over 15 years.

  98. davidmhoffer says:

    The albedo of open water at low angles of incidence is higher than that of water.

    Sigh. Proof read, dave, proof read.

    Of course I meant that albedo of open water at low angles of incidence is higher than that of snow and ice. When you model it over the course of a year, you get less absorption of energy and more radiance to space due to open water versus ice and snow. In other words, the very warming you are so concerned about comes with a built in cooling response that prevents it from happening.

  99. Dave Wendt says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    RESPONSE
    yes, and I have a basic conceptual understand of the physics behind global warming as determined by Svante Arrhenius back in 1893 when he calculated,

    “any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

    If you had read just a tad bit further down the page you might have come across this

    “Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 °C.[8] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 °C). “

  100. davidmhoffer says:

    Gail Combs;
    There are only two sources of heat. Sunlight and the heat from the core of the planet
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well there’s heat generated by tidal friction and there’s also heat generated by decay of radioactive elements. Of course they are too small to be significant and they are pretty much steady state (at least in terms of human time frames) so it is reasonable to ignore them. (but hopefully this serves as a lesson to you know who that skeptics frequently disagree on many points and in this forum that is allowed, even encouraged. Disagree on a warmist site and you just get snipped. In fact, the more valid your point is, the more likely you will get snipped)

  101. Jai, thank you for your answer, we obviously have a large time difference between where we live, it is currently 06:30 here. Nevertheless, “Jai, if the world was 8C warmer in the past with CO2 levels virtually identical to what they are now, why is the world not 8C warmer now? ”
    To turn the question on its head, why was the world warmer then and why did this not lead to catastrophic GW as we are told it will now?

  102. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell says that the chart here shows warming. It doesn’t. Note that it shows falling temps from ≈1997 — the pas sixteen years, as stated.

    Further, as I have pointed out many times here, the Wood For Trees algorithm can be made to show spurious events that are not actually happening. For example, GISS manipulates the temperature record to show non-existent warming.

    Here are ten (10) separate temparature data sets, all showing a decline in global temperatures. jai mitchell is still trying to sell us a pig in a poke, but the fact is that global temperatures began declining about 16 years ago.

    Finally, jai mitchell still avoids answering the charge that moving the goal posts out 500 years is preposterous nonsense. He simply cannot accept the fact that his “carbon” conjecture has been falsified by the only real Authority: Planet Earth. The temperature trend lines are all down, no matter how mitchell tries to spin it.

  103. Dave Wendt says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    June 23, 2013 at 10:07 pm
    jai mitchell says:
    June 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    BTW Jai, in re the above, although I must admit old Svante made a pretty good guess, at least in his 1906 version, i think to suggest it was based on anything like the modern IPCC version of the GHE is a bit of a stretch. Since you seem fond of Wikipedia I offer you this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    “The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light’s energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black body radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is still described by Maxwell’s equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light, do so in amounts of energy that are quantized (i.e., they change energy only by certain particular discrete amounts and cannot change energy in any arbitrary way). Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[2][3] starting with Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein’s hypothesis that light itself is quantized. In 1926 the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these particles, and after 1927, when Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize for his scattering studies, most scientists accepted the validity that quanta of light have an independent existence, and Lewis’ term photon for light quanta was accepted.”

  104. Christopher Hanley says:

    Jai Mitchell’s model or inspiration is probably the ‘Sceptical Science’ ‘escalator’ thus:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticFrame.jpg
    Even though Cook cherry-picks the start of the 70s as his kick-off point, the resultant warming amounts to about 0.16C / decade, hardly enough to rush into economic suicide even if that warming is entirely due to human industrial development.
    If Cook had taken the middle of last century as the start point of human influence as per the IPCC claim, the resultant warming is about 0.12C / decade:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/trend
    99.99% of climate scientists don’t know for sure what is causing the moderate warming (ref. IPCC summary 2007).

  105. Keitho says:

    Dave, the dude is a troll. His area of expertise is in cognitive psychology and he is jerking everybody’s chain here. The models incorporate everything the AGW folk take to be true and reality shows the models are wrong.

    If the models are wrong the theories built into them are wrong.

  106. Aynsley Kellow says:

    DiogenesNJ:
    Disparaging Cook’s cartooning would be one thing, if that was the sole basis of criticisms of him. But I think Anthony was being humorous, and a cartoonist can hardly complain about the use of humour, satire, etc. Besides, is Monckton ever treated on the merits of his argument by this lot?

    Mind you, I think he should be taken seriously as a cartoonist. The Wiki reference states that his comics ‘are also printed in the Adelaide Sunday Mail, Fiji Times & Herald, The Cairns Post, S-press, and AZ Weekly. They have been formerly printed in the Dalby Herald, Gympie Times, Weipa Bulletin, and Milton-Ulladulla Express.’
    I can see why he took up climate science! When the Dalby Herald, Gympie Times, Weipa Bulletin, and Milton-Ulladulla Express cease publishing your cartoons, you know you’re not up there with Gary Larson. (For the non-Australians, Google Dalby, Gympie, Weipa and Ulladulla and you’ll get my drift).

  107. izen says:

    Accusing Cook of plagerism when he used the Hiroshima bomb measure of energy before Hansen is evidence of ignorance of the literature. The ‘Hiro’ as a colloquial measure of energy as the with the ‘Manhatton’ as a measure of area predates both of them.

    Complaining it is ‘scary’ when it is factually accurate seems to be a projection of ones own fears rather than anything realistic.

    @- dbstealey
    “Here are ten (10) separate temparature data sets, all showing a decline in global temperatures. jai mitchell is still trying to sell us a pig in a poke, but the fact is that global temperatures began declining about 16 years ago.”

    But have started rising sharply again in the last five years. As can be seen from this wft graph -

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2008/trend/plot/wti/from:2008/to:2013

    And every other measure of how many ‘Hiros’ the rising CO2 is adding to the climate in terms of ocean heat content, melting ice and the shift in growing seasons and regions confirm the influence of the increased energy retention.

  108. steveta_uk says:

    So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb, 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.

    Could you even see it?

    Of course you could see it – the bulb in a key fob, you know, the teeny one that lets you see the car door lock in the dark, is typically a 0.5W bulb.

    So image the whole world illluminated by key fobs – oooo scary!

  109. Bob says:

    I strongly suggest each and every person complains to the Australia Press Council about this flaunting of journalistic integrity, John Cook was reported (with no back ground checking) as being a ‘scientist’ when his own bio says he isn’t. This goes against the Press Council rules and we can get them to make Murdock Press to print retractions and stop John Cook from getting unwarranted media exposure.

    Here is the article to complain about:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-like-atom-bomb-scientists/story-fn3dxiwe-1226668054364

    Here is the info and back ground:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/06/22/media-fail-john-cooks-atom-bombs/

    Here is the place to lodge your compalint (scroll to the bottom and click the online complaint form):

    http://www.presscouncil.org.au/complaints/

  110. johnmarshall says:

    Your 500W/m2 is the correct average insolation at the surface of the daytime hemisphere NOT the whole planet surface. You then display that abortionate flat earth model with all those mythical energy transfers.
    Reality, which rules OK., has a rotating spherical earth receiving energy on one face only, during daylight. Nightime receives zero insolation but radiates heat over the 12hr. period. Use a realistic model gets realistic energy transfers.

  111. izen says:

    @- Bob
    “I strongly suggest each and every person complains to the Australia Press Council about this flaunting of journalistic integrity, John Cook was reported (with no back ground checking) as being a ‘scientist’ when his own bio says he isn’t. This goes against the Press Council rules and we can get them to make Murdock Press to print retractions and stop John Cook from getting unwarranted media exposure. ”

    I am afraid that the Murdoch press and John Cook are not the only guilty parties in this behaviour. Another Australian is still being credited as a professor with an Australian university (JCU) when he left and ceased being paid or working for them some time ago.
    In this case it is the Heartland institute who has …’missdescribed’ Bob Carter.

  112. Aynsley Kellow says:

    izen: I think you’ll find that Bob Carter was until very recently (a matter of weeks, I believe) an Adjunct Professor at James Cook. As such, he was an active researcher, he was entitled to the title and affiliation, and his publications are still listed to this day as outputs by JCU staff on their web site. Do you have evidence to the contrary – or are you just being deliberately mendacious?

  113. izen says:

    @- Aynsley Kellow
    “izen: I think you’ll find that Bob Carter was until very recently (a matter of weeks, I believe) an Adjunct Professor at James Cook. ”

    Over six months according to this source.
    But for several years his research activity has been fossil fuel funded and nothing directly to do with or paid by JCU.

    http://www.readfearn.com/2013/06/heartland-institute-climate-sceptic-author-has-no-status-with-australian-university-james-cook-university-says/

    Professor Paul Dirks, head of school at JCU’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences where Bob Carter’s affiliation was held, has told me that since 1 January 2013, Bob Carter has had “no official status” at JCU. He said Bob Carter’s previous adjunct status ceased on that date.

  114. Anthony Violi says:

    I like the part where Cook mentions that ACCESS changed the colour code to allow for 54 degrees.

    Of course, no mention that it was a model run 162 hours out, and that the max temp only reached 49.7 that day.

    You could go on and on, he should be at the Comedy Festival, hardly a fact in the article, which is probably the reason it didn’t make the news here in any shape or form.

  115. Aynsley Kellow says:

    izen: ‘Over six months according to this source.’ ‘since 1 January 2013′

    Last time I looked it was June 24. Can’t you guys get anything right? You cite Readfearn? Seriously? His research was funded by the mining industry? A geologist! Who knew? Stop the presses!
    If Readfearn knew anything about academia he wouldn’t have to state that ‘Adjunct’ meant unpaid. It usually means ‘retired’ but still active.
    Heartland failed to correct Carter’s affiliation cited in a report that was last updated in 2011 – when Carter, by your own admission, was still an Adjunct Professor. No sh*t Sherlock! Climategate really pales into insignificance, doesn’t it.

  116. Joe says:

    On the subject of units of measure, maybe we should invent our own to bring some balance? taking the lead from a comment earlier, about available incandescent bulbs, I’d like to suggest the PPR – penlights per room.

    As a provisional definition, the room I’m typing this in is about 12 square metres of floor space. Working with the standard 1.19 Watt “penlight” bulb, those 4 newclear bombs (hat-tip to jai’s FB page) become 6 PPR. That’s 6 cheap 2-cell flashlights in an otherwise dark room.

    Now I’m scared – I could trip over something in all that darkness!!!

  117. Michael F says:

    Those of us in nuclear world often roll our eyes at comparisons of events to nuclear weapons. Well, Alex Wellerstein, who works as an historian at the American Institute of Physics finally decided to make it easy on everyone and built a calculator for this type of nonsense. Now you too can “Cook” your own claims using Hiroshima-equivlanets:

    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/blog/2013/06/07/a-modest-proposal/

  118. izen says:

    @- Joe
    ” Working with the standard 1.19 Watt “penlight” bulb, those 4 newclear bombs (hat-tip to jai’s FB page) become 6 PPR. That’s 6 cheap 2-cell flashlights in an otherwise dark room.”

    Use modern LED lighting and that is sufficient to achieve good working light levels.
    I light a slightly smaller room with 3Watts of led strip light.

  119. Gail Combs says:

    jai mitchell says: @ June 23, 2013 at 8:11 am

    ….I post here because the paranoia and anti-science/science ignorance here is a focal point for likeminded conspiracy theorists and extreme right-wing conservatives to champion their false beliefs based on lies and ignorance.

    In sharing the absolutely easy rebuttals to the insane ruminations coming out of this blog, by people who are given editorial rights here, I hope to show to the public viewing this site just how closed off (censoring my comments) and ignorant (how easy is this for someone with just an engineer’s background in physics to show the idiocy of these theories!) your theories and arguments are…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    ROTFLMAO….

    I could name FIFTY scientists and engineers some with PhDs who post comments here. I can also name several socialists. Richard Courtney for a start. WUWT runs the gamut from interested laymen to professional scientists and engineers and from socialist to conservative.

    You seem to be very steeped in Post Normal Science and not reality.

  120. dbstealey says:

    Izen says:

    “But have started rising sharply again in the last five years.”

    Not really, izen. You’re just cherry-picking. See here.

  121. Backslider says:

    @ Jai Mitchell – “you probably don’t realize that the amount of solar energy hitting the earth’s surface north of the arctic circle right now per day is more than the amount of solar energy hitting the tropics per day right now “.

    Tommy rot. It’s back to school for you buddy.

    You “blanket” analogy is… how shall I put it?….. childish. To compare the effects of GHGs to a blanket is just plain wrong. Think about this – double CO2 is double CO2 that radiates into space.

  122. davidmhoffer says:

    Keitho says:
    June 24, 2013 at 2:11 am
    Dave, the dude is a troll.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sure. And like all trolls, once you get him into a discussion of the science itself, he soon discovers that he doesn’t know as much as he thought, that even his assumptions about the “consensus science” he is supporting are wrong. Trading endless insults with them is pointless. Directing them to what the literature and the science actually says is, in my experience, far more effective in dealing with them, and both they and other readers may learn something along the way.

  123. izen says:

    @- Gail Combs
    “I can also name several socialists. Richard Courtney for a start.”

    Are you sure about that. He has a qualification in theology and is/was in the fossil fuel business.
    I find it difficult to believe he holds that the means of production must be in the hands of the proletariat, including the financial system.

  124. Gail Combs says:

    Justthinkin says: @ June 23, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Is jai mitchell cook posting under a pseudonym,or the other way around? Just curious.

    Anthony REPLY: he appears to be using a real name see: http://www.facebook.com/jai.j.mitchell
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I do not have access to Facebook (Dislike it) so I googled Jai J. Mitchell and came up with a
    Jai J Mitchell Analytics in California.

    IF this is the same person all becomes clear.

    Jai J Mitchell Analytics in …. CA is a private company categorized under Energy Conservation Consultant. Our records show it was established in and incorporated in California…

    The company’s line of business includes Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation.

    Seems to me that Jai J Mitchell Analytics would have a vested interest in seeing the CAGW scare continue since his business will go belly up if CAGW is determined to be a hoax and all the new petroleum based CHEAP energy floods the market.

    Who the heck would hire a high priced California energy consultant if energy was not expensive and Manmade CO2 was not ‘Destroying’ the planet?

  125. Gail Combs says:

    William McClenney says: @ June 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Seems we have evolved from:

    “Trust but verify”

    to possibly two camps:

    “Trust and vilify”

    and

    “Verify before trust.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And here I thought there were just two camps:

    “Trust but verify”

    and

    “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

  126. Gail Combs says:

    Max™ says @ June 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    ….(I suppose kitten bomb wouldn’t be scary to anyone except dwarf fortress players, huh?)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You have never seen what a bunch of cats can do to one’s home… or you.

  127. Gail Combs says:

    izen says:
    June 24, 2013 at 8:58 am

    @- Gail Combs
    “I can also name several socialists. Richard Courtney for a start.”

    Are you sure about that…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes It was part of a comment a couple of months ago although I may have got him mixed with another well known contributor from England.

  128. manicbeancounter says:

    John Cook has been using the Hiroshima analogy for a while now. In his infamous 2010 ABC article “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?”, one of his questions was

    Do you factor in the warming oceans, which since 1970 have been building up heat at a rate of two-and-a-half Hiroshima bombs every second?

    In that inflammatory article, his definition of “skeptic” contradicted those in the world’s greatest dictionary.

  129. Gunga Din says:

    Most of the “regulars” here don’t need to be reminded but for those who are new or have skipped over my comments, I’m a layman here.
    But I got to thinking, with all this talk about CO2 and “Global Warming” and CO2′s long term effect on “Climate Change”, has anybody looked at the long term effect of slowing the wind via wind turbines and changing the Sun’s radiation into electricity via photocells on “Climate Change”?
    Why wouldn’t those things change the climate?

  130. Gunga Din says:

    Gunga Din says:
    June 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    ==================================================================
    Just wondering if anybody saw this. I last putting it up. The “post” and comment traffic have moved on but I’d really like to have an answer if anyone knows.

  131. davidmhoffer says:

    Gunga Din says:
    June 24, 2013 at 3:12 pm
    >>>>

    There is no answer. From a pure energy perspective, the net change is pretty much zero. As a percentage of daily energy in an out of the planet, even on a temporary basis, almost zero as well. From a local climate perspective, there’d be some measurable and dramatic changes. But the same could be said of clearing land for farming, or building a city, or a dam, etc etc.

  132. GoneWithTheWind says:

    I guess you could say that banning DDT which resulted in millions and millions of deaths from Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases that was like the deaths from 20 Hiroshima bombs a year.

  133. Gunga Din says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    June 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    Gunga Din says:
    June 24, 2013 at 3:12 pm
    ==================================================================
    Thanks.
    But it does seem that those so concerned about the “impact’ of CO2 should be concerned about the “impact” of these things also. Why haven’t they looked into them? (Rhetorical question.)

  134. chris y says:

    Backslider says-

    “@ Jai Mitchell – “you probably don’t realize that the amount of solar energy hitting the earth’s surface north of the arctic circle right now per day is more than the amount of solar energy hitting the tropics per day right now “.
    ___________
    Tommy rot. It’s back to school for you buddy.”
    ***************

    Backslider is right.
    Jai Mitchell once again demonstrates a stunning ignorance of the real world.

    Checking NREL solar insolation data for a flat collector in June-
    Barrow, Alaska (71.3 N) averages 4.9 kWh/m^2/day.
    Kahului, HI (20.9 N) averages 6.7 kWh/m^2/day.
    The difference between 80N and 10N is even larger than this.

    If by now you mean July, then the numbers are 4.5 and 6.7, respectively. In other words, June solar insolation is the best cherry-picked month, and 71N sees only 73% of 21N.

    The data is here.
    http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/sum2/state.html

  135. Brian H says:

    For conversational purposes, you can describe the imbalance as “this much” and hold your thumb and forefinger an inch apart, “plus or minus this much” and hold your hands two feet apart.

  136. Aynsley Kellow says:

    izen @ 8.58am:
    ‘He has a qualification in theology and is/was in the fossil fuel business.’
    1. That would put him on a par with Al Gore.
    2. Why do you guys keep thinking that linking to the ‘fossil fuel business’ amounts to an argument? (i) It commits the genetic fallacy; (ii) parts of ‘the fossil fuel business’ love policies to force rapid decarbonisation. They’re in the natural gas business. There’s a famous one you might have heard of (lobbied hard for ratification of Kyoto) – called EnRon.

    What does any of this have to do with whether Richard Courtney is a socialist????

  137. Hamish Grant says:

    I am an alumnus of the University of Queensland with a PhD in Chemistry who always used to remember my alma mater with pride & affection. If they are now providing funding & fellowships to people like Cook, then I now feel like deleting any reference to UQ in my CV.

  138. Rational person says:

    [Snip. Read the site Policy. We do not allow "denialist", or related pejorative labels here. They are completely unscientific, emotional labels that do not belong on the internet's "Best Science" site. — mod.]

  139. Rational person says:

    Bottom line is that there is a demonstrated imbalance. Given the natural state is an equilibrium, SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.

  140. Rational person says:

    Lol, my post gets kicked because I used the pejorative term “denialist” while your article itself makes all sorts of plays on the author’s name “cook” and tries to discredit him by calling him a “cartoonist”. Perhaps you should pull your article for breaking your own rules :)

    [NOTE We aren't calling him a cartoonist, he IS a cartoonist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sev_Wide_Web If we were equating Mr. Cook to holocaust deniers, as your label does, you'd have a point. But sadly, no, you don't have a point -mod]

  141. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “Bottom line is that there is a demonstrated imbalance. Given the natural state is an equilibrium, SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.”

    What demonstrated imbalance? What equilibrium. All this demonstrates is your complete lack of understanding of the science, to quote somebody who shall remain nameless.

    The climate is chaotic – always has been and always will…. there will never be equilibrium until the sun stops shining, the cosmic rays cease and the planets are gone. You would do much better to study this.

  142. dbstealey says:

    Rational person says:

    “Given the natural state is an equilibrium…”

    If equilibrium was the natural state, everything would be in equilibrium.

    But it is not. Everything fluctuates.

  143. Rational person says:

    So you agree with me (and more importantly the observed evidence) that currently there is an imbalance and currently that imbalance indicates warming is happening, right?

  144. dbstealey says:

    Rational person,

    John Cook is a cartoonoist. And as they say in American jurisprudence: Truth is an absolute defense.

    Cook is also a propagandist who ignores the Scientific Method and the climate Null Hypothesis. He also deletes comments from his blog that he doesn’t agree with, and he changes the language in comments to change the meaning — without acknowledging that’s what he did.

    Any rational person would find that behavior dishonest and reprehensible. But to each his own, eh?

  145. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “So you agree with me (and more importantly the observed evidence) that currently there is an imbalance and currently that imbalance indicates warming is happening, right?”

    I certainly do not agree with you, no. The “natural state” of the planet earth’s climate system is chaos, not equilibrium.

    Yes, there has been warming since the little ice age, I don’t think that anybody disputes this. It has warmed since long before industrialization.

    You state ” SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.” as though nobody knows why the planet has warmed, slipped into ice age etc etc. The current evidence is that we are heading toward a cooling – then what?

    Are you one of these people who thinks we can control what the climate is going to do?

  146. Rational person says:

    Oh, I don’t deny he is a cartoonist, but I find it interesting that this “best science” site chooses to use that description instead of his actual honours degrees in physics. But I agree, describing him as a cartoonist is much more responsible for a “best science” web site and has absolutely nothing to do with trying to discredit the man. Afrer all a “best science” web site would deal strictly with addressing the research, not trying to undermine the man, right?

  147. dbstealey says:

    Rational person,

    Look at the satellite record. You can see that global warming is not happening, and has not been happening for many years.

    Looking long-term, we see that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature. None. The belief that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature has been completely deconstructed.

    So we either look at short term fluctuations, or long-term effects, and we see exactly the same thing: ∆CO2 does NOT cause ∆T. The ONLY relationship shows that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2.

    Rational science is not your strong point, is it?

  148. Rational person says:

    “Yes, there has beempn warming since the little ice age” so we agree, warming is happening. Whether it is a local normal climate fluctuation as you believe or as a result of CO2 emissions as I understand from the observed evidence. At least we have some common ground :)

  149. dbstealey says:

    Regarding Cook, “Rational person” says:

    “Afrer all a “best science” web site would deal strictly with addressing the research, not trying to undermine the man, right?”

    Right. So let’s see you defend Cook’s deleting of comments that deconstruct his belief system, and changing the meaning of comments by changing the language — without ever acknowledging what Cook has done.

    I am not ‘undermining’ Cook; he is doing an excellent job of undermining himself, no?

  150. Rational person says:

    @dbstealy, nice cherry picking of data. Here is the same satellite data from 1987 instead of 1997. Why is it your side say that variability is normal but then base your arguments on very limited timeframe observations to suit your needs? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1987/plot/rss/from:1987.9/trend

  151. Backslider says:

    @Rationañ Person – “so we agree, warming is happening.”

    No, we do not agree at all. Please take the time to actually read what I wrote. Warming HAS happened many times in Earth’s history…. as has COOLING. It is the latter which should be of far greater concern as another Ice Age would wipe out billions….. no, wait, that’s what the Greens want anyway, so they would be cheering.

    Thinking more on this…. yes, “global warming” has also wiped out billions…. of DOLLARS. It has also wiped out its fair share of people due to fuel poverty and hunger caused by Green policies. Go the Greens!!!

  152. dbstealey says:

    Rational person,

    Yes, there has been global warming since the LIA. It is completely natural warming, because it has not accelerated, despite the recent 40% rise in CO2.

    If human-emitted CO2 was the cause of global warming, then the warming would have accelerated with the rise in CO2 emissions, no? But as we see, global warming has stopped despite the steady rise in CO2.

    Every rational person understands that CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. If you dispute that fact, then post your testable, verifiable scientific evidence here. No opinions, please; they are not worth the pixels they use up.

  153. Backslider says:

    @Rational person – “nice cherry picking of data.”

    No, that is not cherry picking at all…. unless your own link is also. The time frame is chosen because EVERYBODY accepts that there has been cooling since 1997. All the warmist scientists are up in arms trying to find ways to explain it. Please take the time to connect with the real World.

  154. Rational person says:

    @dbstealy ah right a variant of the graph in this article.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/18/global_warming_denial_debunking_misleading_climate_change_claims_by_david.html

    Note that all the data is still within the 90 percent confidence interval for the models. In other words, even over that short time period, the models are more accurate than even the models themselves predict.

  155. Rational person says:

    Everyone accepts there has been cooling since 1997? Then what about this graph starting at 1998.9? Guess that means everyone is saying temperature has been increasing since 1998, using your logic.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998.9/trend

  156. Rational person says:

    So why is “warmest” not a pejorative term here?

  157. Rational person says:

    @backslider, interesting comments about the “green politics”. Completely irrelevant for a serious scientific discussion of course, but I see the moderator doesn’t seem to deem that out of bounds for the discussion.

  158. Rational person says:

    Btw in ALL the graphs, the trend line is still above 0 even when it is decreasing. That means the increase is still there even if the line slopes down. Talk to me again in ten years when it actually does (according to you) go below zero.

  159. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “Then what about this graph “. This is not about graphs, or climate models for that matter. This is about raw temperature data and what scientists have to say about it all. Are you denying that most warmist scientists acknowledge cooling since 1997? Like I said, please take the time to step into the real World.

    BTW, its interesting to note how your latest graph fails to begin the green line at the beginning of 1998…. isn’t it? That’s right, that’s because ALL of 1998 is not included, we can’t be including that big peak in the graph, now can we?. How positively clever of you! You could get a job at the BOM!

  160. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “So why is “warmest” [sic] not a pejorative term here?”

    Because it is just a descriptive term – there is nothing pejorative about it.

  161. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “Btw in ALL the graphs, the trend line is still above 0 even when it is decreasing. ”

    Good to see that you have managed to notice that yes, it is definitely decreasing. So, what were you saying about “SOMETHING”?

  162. dbstealey says:

    Rational person,

    It is you who is doing the cherry-picking. Rather than picking your preferred start date, let’s use a long term chart: here is a chart from 1975. Note that global temperatures have peaked, and have now started to decline.

    For an even longer term chart, see here. That is an interesting chart, because it clearly shows thart there has been no acceleration in the global warming trend. This chart shows the same thing: no acceleration in warming, despite the recent rise in CO2.

    Here is a short term chart of temperature and CO2. Notice that CO2 does not have the claimed warming effect.

    Finally, here is a chart showing conclusively that the rise in CO2 has not resulted in any acceleration in global warming. All scientific evidence points to the same fact: that CO2 is not the cause of global warming.

    You have been sold a pig in a poke. The “carbon” scare is a complete false alarm. But as long as there is money behind the scare, people will continue to demonize “carbon”. You need to be smarter than that. Otherwise, scientific skeptics will run rings around your arguments.

  163. Rational person says:

    Lol, I started in 1998.9 just like you started your original graph at 1997.9. So what’s you point?

  164. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “I started in 1998.9 just like you started your original graph at 1997.9″

    Ummm… I do not have a graph, however, just for fun, how about you go back there and start at the beginning of 1997…. then hurry on back and tell us all what you see!

  165. Rational person says:

    Btw, if you start YOUR graph at the beginning of 1997, like you accuse me of avoiding for 1998, you get this graph which while still showing a decrease is much less steep than your cherry picked date.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  166. Rational person says:

    And of course if you start at 1996 you get a positive trend again.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend

    Which is exactly my point, you claim global warming has “stopped” but that only works if you cherry pick the date you start comparing with, instead of looking at all the data.

    Short term levelling off and decreases are not only expected, but they have been observed in the past data. Actual climate scientists are not surprised or worried about these local effects. But I bet you dollars to donuts that when the temperatures start going up again certain groups won’t say “oops, we were wrong, the scientists who actually study this stuff actually did know what they were talking about”. Instead they will make up more pseudoscience mumbo jumbo with absolutely no scientific validity.

  167. Rational person says:

    @dbstealy

    Regarding your “starting to decline” graph, what is your scientific justification for picking the years you did for the last trend line? (2002 to 2012). If you change that to be 2000 instead of 2002 you get a much different story.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2012/trend

  168. Rational person says:

    Lol why aren’t you guys using the graph from 1980 to 1987 to “prove” that global warming ended in the 80s.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1987/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1987/trend

    Yes, those dates were cherry picked, but no more-so than cherry picking the most recent 7 years of data.

  169. Rational person says:

    Oops, I take that back. The trend line for the last seven years actually shows an increase :-)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2006/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2006/to:2013/trend

  170. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – So what is your point? Are you saying that we are all going to cook? Please tell us all what you think we should all do about it.

    As I have said, you should really take the time to step into the real World and listen to what scientists are saying. Everybody (except you) agrees that there has been cooling since 1997. While CO2 emissions have gone up dramatically, the temperatures have NOT followed. Warmist scientists are at a loss to explain it. That’s the simple facts.

    You are really being very childish about all of this… I’m sure that I could put together a graph that will show that the earth has been cooling during ALL the time that you think it has been warming.

    Nobody denies that the earth has warmed since the LIA…. some appear to deny that it will cool again. Many scientists believe that cooling has already begun.

    Many believe that the earth has warmed due to CO2, however there is NO empirical evidence that shows this. The fact that CO2 emissions have skyrocketed since 1997 while temperature have declined really should tell you something. Please take the time, since you so much love graphs, to look at the one here: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e55964fe970c-pi

    Then come back and tell us all what you see.

  171. dbstealey says:

    ‘Rational’ person,

    You are becoming increasingly irrational. Even The Economist, the NY Times, and many other formerly rabid global warming believers now admit that global warming has stopped.

    Only John Cook’s religious acolytes still believe in catastrophic AGW. But word is getting out to the general public that the demonization of “carbon” is a grant-based scam.

    You are the ultimate cherry-picker, selecting only those charts that you mistakenly believe support your religious belief system. You never respond to the repeated point that despite the 40% rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, the completely natural rise in global temperatures has not accelerated. How many centuries of proof do you need?

    Everyone else here can see that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. But your religious belief system will not allow you to understand that if CO2 caused global warming, then global warming would have accelerated right along with the rise in CO2. But it hasn’t. Who should we believe? You?? Or Planet Earth?

    So run along back to your thinly-trafficked Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science echo chamber, where Down is Up, War is Peace, Wrong is Right, and CO2 causes Global Warming. They love religious nincompoops over there. But here, you need verifiable scientific facts to make a case — and you have failed. CO2 does not cause rising global temperatures. We can see that. Sorry about you.

  172. Rational person says:

    Hey, I also agree that the temperature trend line shows a decrease since 1997. But you should also agree that the same chart shows an increasing trend since 1996 and 1998.9 (and 2006 for that matter)

    So I turn that back on you, what is YOUR point in focussing on 1997. If a decrease since then indicates proof to you that the climate is cooling, then doesn’t the same logic dictate that measuring from my points which bracket yours indicates the climate is warming?

    My only point here is to show the flaws the “chillists” make in declaring global warming is over based on a tiny statistically meaningless data set.

  173. Rational person says:

    @dbstealy, I notice you reference newspapers and not scientific journals to back up your claim that global warming has stopped. That surprises me. I thought this “best science” web site would prefer to quote actual scientific journals. You know … Science.

  174. Rational person says:

    What about the study by former “coolist” Dr. Richard Muller funded by the Koch foundation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0

    Not only does his study say that global warming is happening and caused by CO2 emissions, but he agrees it is man made.

    In other words, if scientists actually examine the evidence instead of voicing their unsubstantiated opinion, they have no choice but to accept what the evidence is showing.

  175. dbstealey says:

    Rational person asks:

    “…what is YOUR point in focussing on 1997.”

    1997 was sixteen (16) years ago — the exact time frame that The Economist, Keith Briffa, and many other former alarmist publications and scientists claimed would be necessary to show whether global warming had truly stopped or not. Now, at 16 years, they are hoist on their own petard. NONE of them expected the globe to stop warming for sixteen years. It seemed so far off at the time.

    And now that the science shows conclusively that global warming has stopped for 16 years, you cannot accept reality.

    The ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — shows that your belief in catastrophic AGW is wrong. So once again: who should we believe? You?? or the planet?

    I think every rational person would say that Planet Earth is correct, and it trumps the beliefs of eco-religionists such as yourself.

    Finally, from Dr. John Christy’s peer reviewed paper, we see that the current temperature is normal — and cooling.

  176. Rational person says:

    (Snip. Arguing with a mod’s decision is pointless. ~mod)

  177. Rational person says:

    How does it show “conclusively” that global warming has stopped for 16 years when using the exact same data you used I can show increasing trends for almost any year other than your cherry picked one?

    PLUS the observed data still fits within the 90% confidence interval predicted by the models (when we expect the predictions to fail 10% of the time, which it hasn’t).

    Lol it’s like a pitcher throwing nothing but strikes “proves” that he is a bad pitcher because he isn’t throwing balls 10% of the time like predicted. Obviously that means he is a terrible pitcher.

  178. dbstealey says:

    RP:

    Now that many publications and scientists who were staunchly alarmist admit that global warming has ‘stopped’, ‘stalled’, etc., you can go on believing whatever it is that you believe.

    Me, I am greatly satisfied that the NY Times, The Economist, and others have thrown in the towel, and now admit that GW has stopped. But if you believe you know more than they do, have at it. You’re getting to be all alone in your religious belief.

  179. Rational person says:

    [Snip]
    The assertion is that I was not responding to the statement that despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels there is no corresponding increase in temperature.

    Perhaps you would like to read this. I know, it is a newspaper oped piece, but at least it is written by the actual researcher … A former “coolist”. (Hey, if it is ok to call me a warmist then I assume coolist doesn’t break the blog rules).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0

    This just shows that if scientists actually examine the evidence instead of just voicing unsubstantiated opinion, they have no choice but to face the fact that global warming from human activity is happening.

    Whether that’s the end of the world disaster I doubt. But the evidence shows it is happening.

  180. Rational person says:

    Dbstealy, name the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that say global warming has stopped. I thought this was a “science” site but I just hear about what the popular press is saying.

  181. Rational person says:

    As for Christy’s study, yea it was peer reviewed and the errors are pretty obvious. See http://www.skepticalscience.com-christy-once-again-misinforms-congress.html

  182. dbstealey says:

    RP says:

    “Dbstealy, name the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that say global warming has stopped.”

    You are obviously a noob here, so I am not going to do your homework for you. This subject has been thoroughly discussed ad nauseum. You could begin with an archive search for Werner Brozek; that will start you on the right track.

    I suggest that you begin reading the WUWT archives. You have a lot to learn, and a few months researching the subject will do you a world of good. As it is, you are operating from belief, not from any rational perspective. Study up on the Scientific Method, and on the climate Null Hypothesis, too. No belief in man-made global warming has stood up to those scientific basics.

    Finally, forget the ‘Skeptical Science’ talking points. They are belief-based, and they cause everyone else to lose the cAGW argument. You will be no different, as we have shown so far.

  183. Rational person says:

    (Snip. Read the site Policy. ~mod)

  184. dbstealey says:

    RP says:

    “As for Christy’s study…”blah, blah&etc.

    Person, you asked for a peer reviewed study. I provided one. So now you try to contradict it, with a comment from an unreliable [see the right sidebar] blog??

    Obviously, nothing I post can possibly penetrate your religious belief system, which is impervious to science or logic. Dr. Christy is an esteemed climatologist, who has forgotten more than your odious cartoonist has ever learned about the subject.

  185. Gail Combs says:

    Rational person says:
    July 1, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    Oh, I don’t deny he is a cartoonist, but I find it interesting that this “best science” site chooses to use that description instead of his actual honours degrees in physics…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So?
    My husband has a degree in physics but describes himself as a technical writer as does his good buddy who has a PhD in Nuclear Physics.

  186. Rational person says:

    Lol, hard to make my case when a biased moderator applies the rules lopsidedly. Exactly the hypocrisy I expect though from a site that can’s survive an examination of the facts.

    I have mde my points using YOUR data and YOUR logic. Nobody has successfully refuted those facts. All I got here were insults for my trouble instead of an enlightening scientific discourse.

    No sense wasting my time any more. You’ve more than proven the lack of validity of this site.

    I fully expect the censors to remove my posts. After all, that’s what they do when they can’t answer the criticisms.

  187. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “I fully expect the censors to remove my posts”

    The only thing that gets removed are posts which do not comply with the site policy. You can post any argument within the bounds of that policy without watering down anything scientific. The fact is that you are trolling and we have all been very patient with you.

    Try again with what has been removed, but keep it civil – then we can all see it and answer and it won’t be removed – This is NOT SkepticalScience.

  188. Rational person says:

    How, exactly, am I trolling? A data set was provided. I scientifically addressed the asertio s being made about that data with my own observations about that same data, AND by pointing out that the so-called “stall” is still within the confidence interval projections of the climate change models. How does presenting those facts constitute “trolling”?

  189. Rational person says:

    Also, doesn’t’ dbstealy accusing me of posting from “religious beliefs” violate both the policy’s sections about treating people with respect and no talk about religion? Yet I see he had. O moderator actions taken. Thus my statement about a double standard.

  190. dbstealey says:

    Rational Person,

    As we see, your complaints are just as irrational as your comments.☺

    But don’t feel bad, there’s hope: with maturity comes understanding.

    Some day you will understand that The Economist, the NY Times, and many other climate alarmists would never admit that global warming has stopped — if there was any alternative. But there’s not; global warming has stopped, that is a scientific fact. And their credibility is more important to them than their global warming narrative.

    The alarmist press now acknowledges the obvious, because they have learned that it is better to stop digging the hole they’re in, than to keep on digging. Some day you, too, will probably learn that basic life lesson.

    In the mean time, rejoice in the fact that the global warming scare was a false alarm. That is entirely a good thing, no?

  191. Rational person says:

    Now he calls me irrational with no moderator intervention …

    How exactly am I being irrational?

    Please show me how my arguments using the supplied data are in error, instead of sending baseless insults. I wold prefer to keep my discussions to the scientific facts instead of trying to deflect the discussion by insulting the poster. Which, I understand, is what this blog is all about.

  192. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “How, exactly, am I trolling”

    I cannot see your posts that have been removed, however that they have is enough.

    @Rational Person – ” I scientifically addressed the asertio s [sic]”

    I don’t think that you will find anybody around here who thinks that links to SkepticalScience present any kind of scientific evidence.

    You wish to present arguments regarding graphs, admitting yourself that the trend since 1997 has been downward. This is the trend that warmist scientists refer to when talking about the lack of warming – don’t you think that you should argue with THEM if you refuse to accept is as valid? Even Hansen admits it, why won’t you? (even though you did).

    Regardless, we should get back on topic and discuss Cook’s paper – please take the time to look at Monckton’s clear refutation of it (there are many others also).

  193. Rational person says:

    I wasn’t talking about the other blog. I was talking about using the exact same data set as you, but one year earlier or one year later shows an INCREASE in the trend lines. Do you dispute that?

  194. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “I was talking about using the exact same data set as you”.

    I did not use any data sets. My arguments have been purely logical and talking about what is happening in the real World…. what real scientists, both warmist and not are talking about. They all acknowledge the lack of warming since 2007 and for the warmists it is a dilemma and they ADMIT its a dilemma.

    I think that what DBStealy said must apply to you: “Only John Cook’s religious acolytes still believe in catastrophic AGW”

  195. Rational person says:

    The argument earlier was that cooling has happened since 1997 which I agreed to.

    However do you dispute that this graph shows a temperature increase since 1996?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend

    Or this graph shows an increase since 1999

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/trend

    Or that the same arguments you use now would in this graph “prove” that global warming stopped in the 1980s?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1987/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1987/trend

    [snip - sorry - link to another "denier" filled article from a hateful person. BTW why do you have an email named "cretinist basher"? - is that what you think of people you disagree with? - mod]

  196. Rational person says:

    Lol, the graph is actually provided by a “coolist” as I thought you would accept that better. Here is the original source, but of course you then miss all the explanation about how this person didn’t understand the graph he was using. Basically the outer shaded area is the 90% confidence interval, meaning the models predict the data should be in that shaded area 90% of the time. Given that the observed data is in it 100% of the time the models are actually performing better than expected.

    http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

  197. Rational person says:

    To the moderator.

    1. How is my email address relevant to scientific discourse?

    2. How many times have you violated the privacy of “coolists” by I appropriately publishing their email address, which your policy says is supposed to remain private and hidden from other posters?

    Now you know why I don’t trust sites like yours with my primary email address.

    [no privacy has been violated see reply in next comment - your actions here so far don't offer trust, so none is given back -mod]

  198. Rational person says:

    Btw here are the original (unattributed) sources for the graph In the article above from the original researcher”s blog.

    http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/#more-1104

  199. Rational person says:

    FYI my email was originally set up for discussions with young earth creationists, who also take a contrary view to the vast majority of scientists on their topic. I do feel it was inappropriate of the moderator to violate my privacy. This severely undermines any credibility this site has.

    [your privacy hasn't been violated, the full email isn't given, just the relevant part. Nobody knows your name or where or live or your full email address. - no whining then -mod]

  200. Rational person says:

    How hard is it to try a few of the popular mail sites until the address is found? Regardless, the comment was irrelevant and inappropriate for a moderator.

    [no it isn't easy to find, it was tested before hand to make sure the question wouldn't violate privacy. It looks like it was just setup for the purpose of comment here. You are of course welcome to leave at any time, nobody is forcing you to make snide comments here using a fake name. You got off on the wrong foot by calling people names here, you want respect, give some -mod]

  201. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “However do you dispute that this graph shows a temperature increase since 1996?”

    Yes, I do dispute that. You see, I am able to look at it as a rational person, as are most scientists, while you seem unable to. A rational person would say “Of course if we begin before the big spike its going to show the green line as a slight upward slope, however what is INTERESTING is the number of years after the spike which show a cooling trend.

    It is this cooling trend which interests people on both sides of the AGW debate – why does it not interest YOU?

    The graph actually does show a cooling trend since 1997…. believe it, or don’t believe it.

  202. Rational person says:

    My point is that why would you, a moderator, go to the trouble of breaking the blog’s own rules to deliberately “test” that you could get away with posting an irrelevant personal attack based on my email address? You say my choice of email was somehow a setup to obtain a comment. How could that be when I had no expectation anyone would see it?

    As moderator, your job is to prevent people from making such comments, not to make them yourself. The fact that you even hinted at my email address and took “testing” steps to justify your post is a huge abuse of moderator power. I am betting you would NEVER do that to Backslider, for example.

    The post was irrelevant and inflammatory and frankly I deserve an apology.

    [no, you don't get to decide how to apply the rules here, especially when your first post began with insults - if you want to comment here, earn the privilege by not treating everyone as if they have to bend to your will - mod]

  203. Rational person says:

    Ok backslider, despite the graph, you say there was no increase since 1996 and instead choose to use a starting point in 1997 that IS in a spike. What is your scientific justification for picking that date? What is so special about 1997 other than that was the date in some old news articles? Why not use 1999 after the local 1997/98 spike was over?

    I also noticed you never did address my 1980s question. Why was that decline “temporary” while the current one is “permanent”? What scientific evidence do you have that the models are wrong given that the evidence shows that he models are performing better than expected?

    You can’t cherry pick one year or use a statistically insignificant short series of observations to say something is true when the facts don’t support your claim.

  204. Rational person says:

    How did my first post start with insults? Because i used the “D” word? (A word used as commonly in the press as “warmist”). Since I understood you took offence at that haven’t I been working within the rules?

    Besides, is your position really going to be “I don’t like you so I can break my own rules”?

    Face it, you overstepped your bounds as a moderator by using knowledge about my email address that only moderators can look up and making that the content of a public post. That is inappropriate no matter what blog it is.

    [your email address appears to be another insult made specifically for commenting here. your demeanor here is condescending as well. you aren't going to get far here without some attitude change on your part, and again, you haven't been harmed, a portion of your email address was used that appears insulting to ask a question, your privacy is intact, only your pride has been bruised. either move on to a topic or move out. -mod]

  205. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “What is your scientific justification for picking that date? ”

    It is not I who picked the date – this is the date that all leading scientists on both sides of the AGW debate have picked. It is the decline since then that they are discussing.

    Your 1980′s graph is only six years – we are talking 16 years, which all scientists agree is statistically significant.

  206. Rational person says:

    [snip - we are done here with your personal issues, move on to a topic or move out -mod]

  207. Rational person says:

    “All scientists agree is statistically significant”, yet not significant enough to invalidate the climate change models …

  208. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – ” Why was that decline “temporary” while the current one is “permanent”?”

    Please show to the World exactly where I have used those terms……????

    Unlike the IPCC, I am not into crystal ball gazing. There are significant things in nature that affect our climate… things that the IPCC chooses to ignore, things which many warmist scientists choose to ignore. There are however many scientists who study these things in a proper scientific manner – I read an interesting article the other day on a new study on how cosmic rays affect our climate – real science, not the tosh we get from the IPCC and their ilk.

    The fact is that all of the IPCC models have now been thoroughly falsified by actual temperature data. That is the wonderful truth which is so unpalatable to you.

    You should understand that climate models, like any model are not of themselves science – they are merely tools which scientists can use to help them – real science must be subject to verification by experiment. If it cannot be, then it is not science.

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman

  209. Rational person says:

    I will agree with you … Once the models actually have been falsified. The truth is that not only have the models NOT been falsified, but they haven’t even strayed out of their 90% confidence interval yet. So if you look ONLY at verification by experiment, the only conclusion you can make is that so far the models are accurate. To say anything otherwise is premature and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the models work.

  210. dbstealey says:

    R Person:

    As a matter of fact, climate models have been falsified. All of them were wrong. No exceptions [click in chart to embiggen].

    When 100% of the predictive models are wrong, then the original premise [in this case, CO2=CAGW] is deconstructed and falsified. You are arguing exactly like the creationists you hate, but you cannot see it due to your emotional cognitive dissonance. And your endless threadbombing here does not help your cause, nor does it make your argument valid. It is simply a juvenile tantrum, due to the fact that you are not getting your way with the rational adults here.

    You have not provided one iota of testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing that CO2 is the basic cause of global warming — which is an entirely natural fluctuation in the planet’s temperature, and which has gone on in exactly the same way whether CO2 was low, or high. Unless you can falsify the Null Hypothesis, none of your arguments hold water.

  211. Backslider says:

    @Rational Person – “The truth is that not only have the models NOT been falsified, but they haven’t even strayed out of their 90% confidence interval yet.”

    Ummm, yes, they have been falsified. They are now outside all of the “confidence intervals”. That you choose to believe and approve falsified graphs is your own prerogative, however that does not make them right. The only people remaining who refuse to believe this fact are rusted on CAGW believers. Ask yourself this: Why are warmist scientists discussing the fact that the model predictions have FAILED? I will urge you yet again to step into the real world, look around you, take the time to honestly study the things you so vehemently argue. Seek the truth, not what you think is right. Try yourself to falsify your own beliefs – therein is true science.

  212. dbstealey says:

    Even the alarmist scientist contingent is admitting that there is global cooling:

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has….”
    __________
    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
    __________
    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
    Mike,
    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
    __________
    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

    Cheers
    Phil

    [Courtesy of Jimbo, from another thread.]

    Note that the first Phil Jones comment is from 2005 — seven years ago. Since then, the planet has continued to cool. Facing facts is difficult. But if it is not done, the alarmists on this thread look increasingly ridiculous. They are furiously digging, when they should instead be re-assessing their former convictions and beliefs. [Lookin' @ YOU, 'Rational Person'.]

  213. Rational person says:

    Lol

    Do your arguments are stolen emails taken out of context and complete misinterpretation of the graphs.

    THE OBSERVED DATA IS STILL COMPLETELY WITHIN THE 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL OF THE MODEL PREDICTIONS. thus the predictions have not failed.

    If this really is a “science” site then you better learn to read graphs and understand statistics.

  214. Rational person says:

    Of course, the final act of all pseudoscience sites. Can’t argue the facts, so censor the dissenters.

  215. dbstealey says:

    Rational person says:

    “…the final act of all pseudoscience sites. Can’t argue the facts, so censor the dissenters.”

    On this we can agree. That is why SkS, RealClimate, Tamino, and similar alarmist blogs routinely censor skeptics’ comments: they are alarmist pseudo-science blogs.

    OTOH, this site has just won the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site award for the third year running. Because WUWT does not censor [that does not mean you will not be snipped if you violate site Policy, which you have a habit of doing]. [Note that SkS withdrew its name, knowing that it would be stomped by WUWT. They got no huevos.]

    WUWT has plenty of site traffic because it does not censor opposing points of view, like most alarmist blogs do. Readers can make up their own minds as to what is good science, and what is self-serving propaganda. The result is more site traffic than the top three climate alarmist blogs combined. They could turn that around — but it would require adopting WUWT’s no-censorship policy. They are not willing to do that, so they remain thinly-trafficked echo chambers populated by a handful of head-nodders agreeing with each other. How boring.

    Finally, what “stolen” emails are you referring to? With a charge like that, produce your evidence. And your continuing complaint about data-based graphs still ignores the fact that the NY Times, the Economist, and even Phil Jones all admit that global warming has stopped. Sorry yoiu can’t see that. Your blindness is caused by cognitive dissonance.

  216. Backslider says:

    @Rational person – Could you please point me to the experimental science which shows that CO2 causes global warming?

    I thought not……..

Comments are closed.