Test

SMPTE color bars – Click for your own test pattern kit

This page is for posters to test comments prior to submitting them to WUWT. Here is a list of common formatting and special characters. You can try testing your comments below.

h/t to Ric Werme for compiling these tables.

Formatting in comments

Neither WUWT nor WordPress provide much documentation for the HTML formatting permitted in comments. There are only a few commands that are useful, and a few more that are pretty much useless.

A typical HTML formatting command has start and end pieces and has general form of <name>text to be formatted</name>.

A common mistake is to forget the closing tag like </b>. This can have consequences for the entire thread, so please be careful.

Also, WordPress does provide an autolink feature if you simply type in the URL into the comment form, there’s no need to use tags, but you can if you want. The risk is high, in that if you forget to close the tag, or format it improperly, you can cause you entire comment to become a link.

Don’t want to use codes? Try Comment Preview/Editing with Greasemonkey/CA Assistant

If you use Firefox, you can install Greasemonkey, and you can use it to do formatting and test it prior to submitting comments. Combine Greasemonkey with the CA Assistant (developed for Climate Audit by Mr. Pete) and you have a way to fully preview and edit comments prior to submitting – see details here

Commonly used codes for embedding in comments

Name Sample Result
b (bold) This is <b>bold</b> text This is bold text
i (italics) This is <i>italicized</i> text This is italicized text
a (anchor) See <a href=http://wermenh.com>My home page</a> See My home page
blockquote (indent text) My text<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>More of my text My text

quoted text

More of my text

strike This is <strike>text with strike</strike> This is text with strike
code (use for monospace display) <code>Wordpress handles this completely differently</code> WordPress handles this completely differently

Special characters in comments

Those of us who remember acceptance of ASCII-68 (a specification released in
1968) are often not clever enough to figure out all the nuances of today’s
international character sets. Besides, most keyboards lack the keys for those
characters, and that’s the real problem. Even if you use a non-ASCII but useful
character like ° (as in 23°C) some optical character recognition software
or cut and paste operation is likely to change it to 23oC or worse,
230C
.

Nevertheless, there are very useful characters that are most reliably entered
as HTML
character entities
:

Type this To get Notes
&amp; & Ampersand
&lt; < Less than signLeft angle bracket
&deg; ° Degree (Use with C and F, but not K (kelvins))
Alt + numeric keypad 0176 also works
⁰¹²³⁴ ⁰¹²³⁴ Superscripts (use 8304, 185, 178-179, 8308-8313 for digits 0-9)
₀₁₂₃ ₀₁₂₃ Subscripts (use 8320-8329 for digits 0-9)
&pound; £ British pound
&ntilde; ñ For La Niña & El Niño Alt + numeric keypad 0164 also works
&micro; µ Mu, micro
&plusmn; ± Plus or minus
&nbsp; Like a space, with no special processing (i.e. word wrapping or multiple
space discarding)
&gt; > Greater than signRight angle bracketGenerally not needed

Happy commenting!

[UPDATE] At the request of the mods, I’ve added this comment:

Mindert Eiting says:
January 30, 2014 at 2:36 pm

Could it be that the editor deletes sentences between unequal signs? I try it again: Comparing for example, from all stations included before 1970, those dropped during 1970-1991 and dropped (or not yet dropped) after 1991, I found a 27 sigma difference…

Good question, Mindert. In HTML, such as WordPress uses, the signs are reserved to indicate HTML instructions. They are not printed, but the instruction inside them is executed (like bold, italic, whatever).

So the excel style unequal signs will not print at all … but you can use what other computer languages use, which is != …

w.

PS—If you want the “greater than” and “less than” signs to print, like I did above, use an ampersand (&) followed by either gt; or lt; for greater or less than. You need to include the semicolon.

About these ads

1,024 Responses to Test

  1. jorgekafkazar says:

    ⁰⁲⁳⁴⁵⁶⁷໤⁹
    ¹² ³
    Superscripts (use [alt]8304, 0185, 0178-179, 8308-8313 for digits 0-9)
    Nifty.

  2. netdr2 says:

    Being able to post graphs would be great they would need to be posted online.

    Posting Images
    You can use HTML code to post an image (eg – a graph). The image needs to be hosted online. The HTML code is:

    Here is a try

  3. kramer says:

    Thank you for adding this information on how to format our posts! I was thinking of asking for it, looks like some others did.

  4. kramer says:

    On a side note, does anybody know of a Mac OSX program where you can type in formatted comments for forums like this and then hit ‘run’ to see what it looks like?

  5. Ray says:

    you should add the “/sarc” also.

  6. In order to display images and graphs in the comments a plugin must be installed by the administrator. See http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/comment-image

    This would be very useful.

    REPLY: Sorry, not gonna happen. wordpress.com hosting does not allow plugins for security reasons – Anthony

  7. kramer says:

    a href=”http://www.wattsupwiththat.com”>link</a

    link

  8. INGSOC says:

    I am going to try a whack of code here. Please bear with me. Just trying some variations.

    I wonder if I can have raised text? Like; testing testing 1,2,3. Maybe sub and super text? Testing, testing, testing.

    I also want to test -10° C, or does that have to have end pieces like -10C ?

    Testing to see if a
    link
    anchor works.

    Perhaps something big will catch the eye.

    Maybe I want to centre my comment?
    Like this

    Maybe I want to separate some text with a line?

    Like this?

    Why do I like WUWT?

    Interesting articles?
    Thoughtful commentary?
    Easy to navigate?
    Pictures of naked science?

    Maybe I want to quote someone?

    I am not, nor have I ever been, clever

    50¢ Or does there need to be a space? 50 ¢

    El Niño

    This has been a test of the emergency commenting system. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

  9. INGSOC says:

    I didn’t realise just how much noscript was interfering with the code. Also, using greasemonkey and Mr Petes script has made a world of difference. Testing testing.

    Example 2:

    List item 1
    List item 2
    List item 3
    List item 4

    That concludes our broadcast day. Be sure to tune in tomorrow for more of your favourite programming.

  10. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    bold on & off Thanks, Anthony!

  11. John from CA says:

     
    ¡
    ¢
    £
    ¤
    ¥
    ¦
    §
    ¨
    ©
    ª
    «
    ¬
    ­
    ®
    ¯
    °
    ±
    &sup2;
    &sup3;
    ´
    µ

    ·
    ¸
    &sup1;
    º
    »
    &frac14;
    &frac12;
    &frac34;
    ¿




    ÷
    ×

    &frasl


    ƒ
    &there4;
    &sup1;
    &sup2;
    &sup3;


  12. John from CA says:

    H2O

    H&178;
    H&8322;

  13. John from CA says:

  14. Roy says:

    Peter Plail writes:

    “what value is the peer review process adding, since both papers have presumably passed through peer review? “

    Peer review is intended and designed to exclude only the most ridiculous errors and excursions. Peer review, when it works, should assure you only that reading the paper is not a complete waste of time.

    Peer review does not, cannot, and should not act as a seal of approval from any authority. Any one who appeals only to the authority of the peer review is either lazy or incompetent or both. You have to read and understand the paper and form your own judgement. That is why people get so exercised about full disclosure, or the lack of it.

  15. Carsten Arnholm says:

    System reinstall. Testing CA assistant plugin.

  16. Rob Howden says:

    test website

  17. DA says:

    While it is a well written article and does discuss a (potentially) much better alternative to energy future than windmills, etc… he does show his true colours and rather spoil the article with this statement:

    And time is of the essence; cheap fossil fuels are running out, further greenhouse gas buildups could trigger a runaway super-hothouse…

    I think that the first job climatologists need to actually prove is that CO2 (and other GHGs) will actually lead to a runaway super-hothouse.

    For me that still hasn’t been proven.

  18. tmtisfree says:

    test

  19. Philip Mulholland says:

    Following John from CA
    February 3, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    ¡
    ¢
    £
    ¤
    ¥
    ¦
    §
    ¨
    ©
    ª
    «
    ¬
    ­
    ®
    ¯
    °
    ±
    &sup2;
    &sup3;
    ´
    µ

    ·
    ¸
    &sup1;
    º
    »
    &frac14;
    &frac12;
    &frac34;
    ¿




    ÷
    ×

    &frasl


    ƒ
    &there4;
    &sup1;
    &sup2;
    &sup3;


  20. Nylo says:

    empty links: #23

  21. okie333 says:

    more testing…

  22. wobble says:

    test italics

  23. Doug Jones says:

    Andy G says:
    March 24, 2011 at 1:05 am

    Maybe we should put forward the idea that that are building the new loader because they have to export more coal to cover the CO2 tax burden.

    Ahahahahaha! Andy G wins the thread.

  24. kramer says:

    strike no strike through

  25. John Whitman says:

    mods,

    Just a test for linking properly.

    ———-

    Alec Rawls says:
    March 24, 2011 at 1:25 am

    – – – – – – –

    Alex Rawls,

    Regarding your discussion of the ideas that solar activity levels and variations may be a significant cause of average earth surface temperature levels and variation, here is a relevant presentation (Dec 2010) by Prof. Vincent Courtillot. He touches on several aspects of solar variations versus climate. I found his talk to have some merit.

    What are your views on his ideas?

    John

  26. John Whitman says:

    mods,

    Just testing my html tags.

    ——-

    [my words for your premise] It just does not matter what the group of scientists associated with the iconic graph did in preparing it for the IPCC assessment report because those scientist’s ends are apriori true. So those posited truths entirely justify the means necessary to manage the data to conform with their a priori truth.

    John

  27. Jimbo says:

    Dr. James Hansen et. al.2000
    “A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.”

    Dr. James Hansen et. al.2003
    “Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.”

    Dr. Phil Jones email – 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 but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – October, 2009
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    Dr. Phil Jones interview – February, 2010
    Roger Harrabin – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

    Phil Jones – “Yes, but only just.”

  28. DirkH says:

    Testing the mighty greasemonkey.

  29. Myrrh says:
    March 27, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Myhrr,

    Without reopening the whole discussion again, here a few remarks:

    – That pre-Mauna Loa CO2 levels were higher in some years is based on the work of the late Ernst Beck. I have read his work in detail. The main problem with his work is that many of the historical measurements were done over land, where you can measure any level of CO2: extremely high at night and near huge sources, very low during daylight near vegetation. The 1942 peak value is mainly from two long series over land (Giessen, Germany and Poona, India), with huge variability (Giessen: 68 ppmv – one sigma). In the same year at the other end of the world (US) values of 250 ppmv were measured. Both series and the value from the US can’t be used to estimate backgound CO2 levels of that period. Measurements on ships over the oceans and coastal with wind from the seaside show values around the ice core CO2 levels for the overlapping periods. There is no 1942 “peak” visible in ice cores, neither in stomata data or d13C values of coralline sponges.
    – Segalstad is wrong on many counts: there is not the slightest connection between residence time and excess CO2 decay time. Residence time only shows how much CO2 is exchanged over the seasons, but that has nothing to do with how much CO2 is added or removed at the end of a full seasonal cycle. That is what counts, not which molecules (human or natural) are left. And as humans add twice the amount which is measured as increase, that makes that humans are fully responsible for most of the increase.
    new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques.
    How can you validate a new technique with an accuracy of +/-0.1 ppmv against a wet chemical method “accurate” to +/-10 ppmv? Keeling validated the new method against an extreme accurate manometric method (1:40,000).
    – Jaworowski tells stories from 1992, which were fully refuted in 1996 by the work of Etheridge e.a.: Etheridge measured CO2 levels top down in the firn from near the surface to closing depth. That shows that the CO2 levels at 72 m depth in average are some 10 years older than at the surface (with similar levels in ice and firn), while the ice is already 40 years old. Thus Jaworowski is completely wrong that there is no difference between ice age and gas age in ice cores. See:

    Further, it is physically impossible to measure lower CO2 levels in ice cores, if the outside CO2 level is much higher and there would be cracks in the ice which allow exchanges with the outside world.
    – Volcanic CO2 is estimated less than 1% of human emissions. Even the largest volcanic eruption of the past 50 years, the Pinatubo, caused a drop in CO2 increase rate, as the cooling resulting from the ash cloud caused more absorption than the extra addition of CO2 from the eruption. Moreover, what Timothy Casey missed is that volcanic CO2 is higher in d13C than the atmospheric CO2, but we see a decrease in d13C, not an increase.

    About your own objections:
    – Mauna Loa was not the first station where CO2 was measured, the South Pole was first. Mauna Loa only confirmed the South Pole measurements.
    – Mauna Loa monitors the CO2 levels continuously. If there is a huge variability within an hour of the 10-second samples, then the data are not used for averaging. That happens with downwind conditions. In fact these data (some +4 ppmv) are used to calculate the emissions from the volcano. The same for upwind conditions, where slightly depleted levels (-4 ppmv, caused by vegetation in the valley) are found. Taking these values into the averaging doesn’t change the average with more than 0.1 ppmv, neither changes the trend. See:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo2004_hr_raw.jpg and

    and all the data is now co-ordinated to fit
    This is pure nonsense. The only thing that is coordinated by the WMO via NOAA is the preparation and calibration of calibration mixtures (even so, Scripps has its own calibration mixtures). The 70 baseline stations are operated by different people from different organisations in different countries. Nobody tells them to “fit” some agenda. Or do you think that not one of the hundreds of people involved would bring that out?
    Oh right, the old “well-mixed” meme. And somehow large amounts of CO2 are sticky? Or what?
    It is a matter of mixing speed: If you release a huge quantity at once, that amount is residing near ground, eventually killing trees (Mammoth Lakes) and humans (African lake). But within hours, the wind disperses and mixes CO2 within other molecules. To distribute that worldwide needs time: days to weeks within one latitude and altitude, weeks to months within one hemisphere for different altitudes and latitudes and some 14 months between the hemispheres. That are the differences you see in the monthly satellite data: some +/-8 ppmv over the seasons (look at the scale!). If that isn’t well mixed, then I don’t know what is well mixed according to you.
    And the trend everywhere is +60 ppmv over the past 50 years, far beyond the temporary differences over the seasons.
    – Brownian motion: If molecules can transport heavier items over any distance, then there is no reason that they can’t carry much smaller molecules to any place in the atmosphere, even if these are relative heavier than the average. CO2 levels at 3,400 m at Mauna Loa are the same as at sea level on Hawai. While wind and convection are the main mixing items, Brownian motion is what keeps CO2 and any other gas in the mix.
    For CFC’s in the stratosphere, see:

    http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=9549

    CO2 levels are amongst the best measured and quality controlled data I know of. It doesn’t matter if you use the Mauna Loa data or any of the other baseline stations (“global” CO2 data is the average of several sealevel stations, Mauna Loa not included). All show the same trend. One can only hope that one day the temperature data will be of the same quality…

  30. Kate says:

    MAKING COMPLAINTS TO THE BBC

    Do you want to complain to the BBC?

    One thing to get straight from the start: – responsibility for the BBC’s editorial content within their Editorial Guidlines rests ultimately with the Director-General, as Editor-in-Chief. This may save complainants a great deal of frustration as the vast Kafka-like bureaucratic monster that the BBC has become will have you pushed from pillar to post as each department asserts that their department is not the one to deal with your complaint, and fobs you off to yet another department or the BBC’s “complaints” web page. Having had a long experience of dealing with BBC producers and editors, I can say with some authority that complaints are routinely ignored, dismissed, or, as in the case of emails, deleted by one of their army of “screeners” who filter out all averse comments from their boss’ Inbox.

    So write a letter to this bloke, who’s supposedly running the operation –

    Mark Thompson, BBCDirector-General
    Broadcasting House
    Portland Place
    London
    W1A 1AA
    UK

    020 7580 4468
    Fax 020 7637 1630

    Contact the BBC directly

    The BBC Trust
    “Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.”
    – Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.

    Re. AGW bias:
    Last year, Alison Hastings said this:
    “The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”

    Contacting her directly –

    Alison Hastings
    BBC Trust Unit
    180 Great Portland Street
    London
    W1W 5QZ
    UK

    Telephone: 03700 100 222
    Textphone: 03700 100 212
    Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

    For the record, I have written to Alison Hastings myself about the BBC’s coverage of AGW, and I can tell you that she did not reply. Instead, I got a letter from her Correspondence Manager, Bruce Vander. He said that the Trust has no role in editorial matters, which are the domain of the BBC’s management. The Trust’s role is to set out the overall framework, known as the BBC’s Editorial Guidlines, which set out the values and standards that all BBC output should meet. He also pointed me to the complaints page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints and said the Trust conducts regular impartiality reviews of BBC editorial content. The current impartiality review concerns science coverage, including global warming, and its findings are due to be published later this year.

    From all that, I conclude the way to complain is firstly via the complaints page, then to the management, then finally to the Director-General himself.

    The BBC will only change their behaviour on this subject if they get a regular avalanche of complaints from the public. They are an insulated, self-serving, arrogant, incestous bureaucracy which ignores the very public it proclaims itself to serve. The more you let them get away with it, the more they will get away with. If the BBC knows their biased and unfair treatment of AGW and the participants in their programs will invoke an avalanche of objections from viewers and listeners, they may well alter the content of their programs to make them less biased and unfair.

    Also write to the BBC Complaints department

    BBC Complaints
    PO Box 1922
    Darlington
    DL3 0UT
    UK

    There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
    make a complaint via this website:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code

    Call BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
    (UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)

    or write (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR

    There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online –

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/

    or write to

    Feedback
    PO Box number 67234
    London
    SE1P 4AX
    telephone 03 333 444 544
    feedback@bbc.co.uk

    You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not about online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    BBC Statement:

    We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.

    Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?

    We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.

    If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.

    If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.

    Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?

    If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days

    If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.

    Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml

    Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?

    The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.

    Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.

    You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.

    We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Email other BBC programs directly:

    Storyville
    storyville@bbc.co.uk

    Broadcasting House
    broadcasting.house@bbc.co.uk

    Newsnight Investigations
    NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk

    Newsnight
    newsnight@bbc.co.uk

    Horizon
    horizon@bbc.co.uk

    Emma Jay
    Producer/Director BBC Vision Productions (Horizon)
    emma.jay@bbc.co.uk

    The Today Program
    todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Commissioning Editors

    The British Broadcasting Corporation
    BBC White City
    201 Wood Lane
    London
    W12 7TS
    UK
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning

    Knowledge
    George Entwistle
    Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
    (Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)

    Emma Swain
    Head of Knowledge Commissioning
    emma.swain@bbc.co.uk
    Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.

    Krishan Arora
    Independents Executive
    krishan.arora@bbc.co.uk
    Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.

    Mary FitzPatrick
    Executive Editor Diversity
    mary.fitzpatrick@bbc.co.uk
    Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.

    Documentaries

    Charlotte Moore
    Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
    Room 6060
    BBC TV Centre
    Wood Lane
    London
    W12 7RJ
    UK
    charlotte.moore@bbc.co.uk

    Emma Willis
    Commissioning Executive Producer
    emma.willis@bbc.co.uk

    Maxine Watson
    Commissioning Executive Producer
    maxine.watson@bbc.co.uk

  31. Kate says:

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC, if it were needed, that their daily alarmism is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  32. Kate says:

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC, if it were needed, that their daily alarmism is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

  33. Kate says:

    Help! This page isn’t working!

  34. Kate says:

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  35. Kate says:

    HTML tags will get the submission deleted.

    HTML tags are deleting comments.

    …except this one.

  36. Kate says:

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

  37. Kate says:

    THIS IS A TEST HEADLINE

    Previous attempts to make this comment have not worked, so let’s have another try.

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

  38. Kate says:

    WHY WON’T THIS WORK?

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

  39. Kate says:

    This page is interesting. Sometimes it displays comments with html tags and other times the comment just vanishes…

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

  40. Kate says:

    Why are HTML tags making comments vanish?

    Try it yourself!

  41. Kate says:

    New Attempt

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  42. Kate says:

    Attempt to get this comment posted

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

  43. Kate says:

    THE BBC IS IN THIS HEADLINE

    Let’s see if it appears as formatted.

  44. Kate says:

    This is odd. If you use HTML code on your first line followed without a break with the letters BBC, (like this: BBC) the entire post vanishes. But if you use the same tags with a word in front of BBC (like this: THE BBC the post appears as formatted.

  45. Kate says:

    ["Kate" seems to be a single issue spammer trying to get her message out through us . . I approved one of her posts and then told her to stop spamming and she reacts with more and more . . does Anthony have an opinion?]

    [Reply to the mod's comment above: Who are you? You need an identifier, it's in the rules for moderators. Like this: ~dbs, mod.] [I am sorry , my name is kab]

    What can we conclude from all this?

    There is a serious flaw in the blog script which does not allow HTML tags to be followed by the letter B. You should be able to use whatever letter you want after a formatting instruction such as “” continuing to the end of the tag ““, and if using the letter B (or any other particular letter) immediately following the HTML tag makes the entire post disappear, it’s the blog software itself that’s flawed.

  46. Kate says:

    THE BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  47. Kate says:

    BBC TEST

    Body text.

  48. Kate says:

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

  49. Kate says:

    Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

  50. Kate says:

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  51. Kate says:

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  52. Kate says:

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

  53. Kate says:

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

  54. Kate says:

    BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

  55. Kate says:

    THE BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

  56. Kate says:

    TEST THE BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS

    body text…

  57. Kate says:

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

  58. Kate says:

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

  59. Kate says:

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

  60. Kate says:

    Test this out; A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat.

  61. Kate says:

    - Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.

  62. Kate says:

    Hitler.

  63. Kate says:

    The last several tests have proven that this site will delete all posts containing the word H i t l e r.

    If they said that before, it could have saved me a lot of time finding it out.

  64. Kate says:

    BBC BRAINWASH FOR KIDS ABOUT AGW

    A survey conducted among 24,000 schoolkids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own “Climate Change” game, I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this –

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  65. Kate says:

    THE BBC BRAINWASH FOR KIDS ABOUT AGW

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own “Climate Change” game, I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

  66. Kate says:

    ATTEMPTED BBC BRAINWASH FOR KIDS ABOUT AGW

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own “Climate Change” game, I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this –

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  67. Kate says:

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this –

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  68. Kate says:

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

  69. Kate says:

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this –

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  70. Kate says:

    Goebbels

  71. Kate says:

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

  72. Kate says:

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

  73. Kate says:

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

  74. Kate says:

    The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of the BBC’s climate lies?

  75. Kate says:

    How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of the BBC’s climate lies?

  76. Kate says:

    The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam.

  77. Kate says:

    The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society

  78. Kate says:

    - our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam.

  79. Kate says:

    - our kids – are the victims of this

  80. Kate says:

    horrendous, vicious scam.

  81. Kate says:

    horrendous, vicious

  82. Kate says:

    scam.

    [Kate, if you use a word like "fraud," the post will be automatically diverted into the spam folder. That's really not a problem, if the post is reasonable. It will just take longer for it to appear because it's another step for the moderator to go through the spam folder and mark it "not spam." Then it appears as a public comment. ~dbs, mod.]

  83. Kate says:

    s c a m.

  84. Kate says:

    Will someone post a list of words that will be censored on this site? The latest word I’ve found which gets my entire post deleted is S C A M.

    – and while we’re about it, I would like an explanation as to why this word is considered so offensive.

  85. Kate says:

    fraud

  86. Kate says:

    f r a u d

    [Kate, WUWT doesn't bar certain words. A WordPress algorithm does. They don't tell us what those words are. But you can figure some of them out. I've unapproved this post so only you can see it. But it made it through moderation without any problem. ~dbs, mod.]

  87. Kate says:

    There’s another one – F R A U D

  88. Kate says:

    THE BBC’s AGW BRAINWASH FOR KIDS

    A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat

    If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own “Climate Change” game, I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:

    “Why make a game about climate change?

    “Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.

    “The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

    “Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”

    …etc

    It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious s c a m. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?

    Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

    The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml

    find it on the page

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

    “Earth’s future is in your hands
    A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”

    More info on this –

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml

  89. Myrrh says:
    March 29, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Keeling wasn’t interested in real observation, he said that – my geologist link above.

    Well your geologist is wrong at least on one important point: volcanic CO2 is not the cause of the increase of CO2, simply because its 13C/12C ratio is the other way out, compared to the observations. That shows to me that he either hasn’t looked at the data or simply ignored them.

    Moreover, if volcanic activity was the cause, why would there be an increase at exactly 53% of human emissions? CO2 levels didn’t peak at Mauna Loa when the volcano there erupted, neither showed a decline after the eruption.

    I didn’t find any remark on Keeling’s attitude: Keeling was hardly interested in “global warming”, as far as that was an item at all in the 1950’s, it was seen as something beneficial! The only interest of Keeling was good, continuous, measurements of CO2, which costed him a lifetime of struggle against several administrations. See:

    http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf

    Keeling decided that the Antarctic wasn’t good enough for his purpose, not enough change
    What a nonsense: The measurements at the South Pole still are done since the start: continuously from 1957 to 1963, before (1956) and after that with (bi-)weekly flask samples, later again with continuous equipment. The variability indeed is less than at Mauna Loa, simply because the SH has less vegetation, thus less seasonal variability. And less outliers (except for mechanical problems in the harsh conditions there), because there is no vegetation and no volcano at least 1,300 km away. Even so the the trend is exactly the same as at Mauna Loa (except for a lag of about 14 months). Here a plot of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa and the South Pole since 1960, versus the human emissions:

    If you think that the increase is from some natural source, I am very curious which one can follow the human emissions in such an exact ratio.

    And indeed, Keeling could declare that there was an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere after only two-three years of measurements (at Mauna Loa and the South Pole): his new method was accurate enough to detect the increase (which was already presumed, but couldn’t be confirmed with the wet chemical methods).

    your dismissal of all previous studies of the variable local production of CO2, as Keeling et al did

    Keeling did eactly the opposite: he observed a huge variability in local CO2 levels in the Big Sur forest (California), but also measured the 13C/12C ratio, so he did know that vegetation was the main cause of the variability. He also found that in the afternoon, levels were leveling everywhere, showing about the same CO2 level over fields, in deserts and over the oceans. That was the reason for him to look at places where the least contamination of sources and sinks of CO2 were.
    CO2 levels in the first 200 meters above land are extremely variable, simply because CO2 sinks and sources are adding and substracting CO2 and the air mass is not mixed. Even so, some 400 CO2 monitoring stations (including tall towers) are trying to establish CO2 fluxes over large areas. Above 500 m over land and everywhere above the oceans, deserts and icefileds, air masses are well mixed, be it with a delay for the huge seasonal exchanges from oceans and vegetation. That is for 95% of the atmosphere. The 5% of the atmosphere with high variability is of no interest at all for any discussion about the greenhouse effect. Even if there was 1,000 ppmv CO2 in the first 1,000 meter, the radiation absorption effect would give less than 0.1°C increase. For 95% of the atmosphere, the CO2 levels are within +/-3 ppmv worldwide for yearly averages. Confirmed by stations, ships, airplanes and nowadays satellites. That are solid data, unlike temperature data.

    It takes energy to move something heavier than air into the mid and upper atmosphere, neither CO2 nor CFC’s have any ability to do this of their own volition.
    Brownian motion takes the energy from collisions with air molecules. It carries much heavier stuff than CO2 or CFC molecules and keeps them within the air, without dropping out. It is the wind and convection which mixes CO2 into the rest of the air and everywhere around the world, but Brownian motion keeps the CO2 in (only in total standstill, some small increase – ~1% – at the bottom of 72 meter of firn after 40 years can be measured). Please consult anyone familiar with gases and vapours about this item, he/she will confirm what I say.
    And this is based on observations, not any theoretical consideration.
    I had some figures about how much CO2 is absorbed in rain, but lost them, all I remember is that it was negligible for CO2 level measurements.

  90. Jessie says:

    Ah, the science of medieval times, ocean currents?

  91. Neil Jones says:

    @StevenInBrooklyn says:
    April 1, 2011 at 7:42 pm

  92. Theo Barker says:

    Neil Jones says:

    @StevenInBrooklyn says:
    April 1, 2011 at 7:42 pm

  93. Curiousgeorge says:

    ZeZm7KQJT1o

  94. NikFromNYC says:

    Testing:

  95. Jim Masterson says:

    Table Test

    Earth’s
    Albedo=
    0.3129
    0.3129
    0.3129
    0.3129
    0.3129

    Surface Emissivity=
    1.00
    1.00
    0.95
    1.00
    0.95

    Atm. Emissivity=
    1.00
    1.00
    0.3997
    1.00
    0.3997

  96. Richard Patton says:

    “Jeff Carlson says:
    April 18, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Same thing occurs in the ocean with sonar and sounds waves … it allows for some long range tracking but also short range dead zones …
    When I started doing acoustic predictions in the `80 while on the USS Midway I was shocked to discover how limited the ranges were most of the time. Sure you could get a nice duct occasionally and catch a sub out at 60nm but most of the time a sub could be in periscope (and torpedo) range but sonar would not pick it up. We spotted a periscope once between us and another ship (about 200yards) but the sub wasn’t on sonar.

  97. Richard Patton says:

    That was a test

  98. anon says:

    testing 012135432642536-------
    -------5345t234t3wedf43564326

  99. anon says:

    test

    Costing Cap‮slx.exe

  100. 0101010101 says:

    Oh godͣ̋̏̀ͨ̿͒̚,̷̐͡ W̢͉̘͇͙͂̇͒ͩ̚͝Ḩ̛̖̪͈̘̥̏̎̑̾̈́͆͞Ă̧̧̮̯̰͎͈̘̱ͯŢ̳͈̹̲͈̩̤̪̅ͣ͠ ̛̞̖̮ͣ̉̋̀ͦ͛̊̚ ̧̛͇͈͕̣̟̣̠ͪ̉ͯͫ̾̒ͭͫ͡H̨̳̯̲̻͖̫̒ͯͅͅA͐͋̽̌V͌ͦ̂̀̉ͤ͛͛̌͆̈̊ͯ̓͂͂̒͝҉̭̦̗͕͔̜E͈̩͎̜̙͖̘̺͓̋ͮͤͮ͊̔ͭͧ͑ͩ͗͛̀̀͘ͅ ̎̽ͯ͂͒ͤͭ̃͗͌̐͛͆͛̉̊̃̾ͩ҉͖̲͈̲͎͓͔̫̭̫̼̩̫͈͈̜̭ͅI̴̶̶̗̯̳͍͕̼̭̰͍̥̼͙̬̩̼͎̞͑̿ͭ̏ͣͧ̍̾ͦ͆̓ͦ͘ ̵̣̹̜̗̩̻͇̱̖̻̈́ͣ̍̂̊͋͟͞ͅD̢̮͖̬̫͍̳̱̦̬̤ͤ̃ͪ̊̔̓̽ͦͩͩ̊̈ͣ̀̀͢ͅÔ̴ͯ̀ͬͮ҉̧̳̪̲͔̙͓͔̲̼̼͈̜̀͜ͅN̷̳͕̱̞̪̹͙̲͇̙͓͈̫ͥ̃ͥ́̿̐̎́ͫ̐̍̓̌ͦ͌͢͡E̷̴̛͉̩̦̻̦̯̠̬̭͙̞ͮ̓̀͌ͩ̐ͯ̈̅̄ͧ̐̈͛̒̅̾́?̌͗

  101. 0101010101 says:

    Here is a block of text for your viewing pleasure

  102. phlogiston says:

    testing:

    Beerling and Berner 2005

  103. phlogiston says:

    I’ll try again:

    Beerling and Berner 2005

  104. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    A different comment area with a different layout has shown up, CA Assistant does not work with it, and the first comment I tried making with this new thing has disappeared somewhere, hopefully no further away than the spam bucket! And without CA Assistant, I Have Lost My Preview Function!!

    I’m trying to post here to see if “lost post” is going to happen again!

  105. phlogiston says:

    Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
    June 13, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    Great comment. As a whole scientific research communitues across biology, physics, engineering etc. pay lip service to nonlinear dynamics and chaos but stick to linear systems for the vast majority of their working models. Science remains too compartmentalised. The field of study of chaotic / nonlinear systems is well developed and such systems despite their “chaos” label display conformity to a number of rules and patterns and types of analysis. Such insights need to be communicated to fields where they are needed, e.g. climate, physiology, biology etc. in a qualitative manner. FWIW my own attempt to do so was posted here on WUWT in January this year:

  106. Simon says:

    Blockquote test

    Inline quote test

  107. David, UK says:

    &

  108. David, UK says:

    Test

    cliche´

  109. David, UK says:

    &supTM

  110. David, UK says:

    TrademarkTM

  111. Bruce Holle says:

    Good day! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my good old room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!

  112. Maybe I’ll get it right on the 3rd try!

    Terry Oldberg
    You are demonstrating a basic error here. The test form is actually a modus tollens, not a modus polens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens), in that the set of consequences (not a single consequence, but rather multiple consequences/fingerprints) must be present for the consequences to be true. And each hypothesis (antecedent) has multiple consequences/predictions, not just one.
    In other words:
    If A then {B, C, D, E…}
    If not {B, C, D, E…} then not A
    The set of consequences matches greenhouse gas emissions, and invalidates other explanations
    Your formulation is strictly one of modus ponens, starting with the observation of the antecedent “A” and checking for “B” as a tied result, in other words testing the relationship between antecedent and consequent. What I am describing, and in fact what is present even in Arrhenius 1896, are a set of consequences driven by the physics that will be observed if the antecedent becomes true – and the presence or absence of those consequences are very very testable.
    I will note that this is not an absolute proof of “A”, but rather a disproof of various alternatives. If another antecedent could be found that also matched the set of consequences/fingerprints, other tests would have to be found to distinguish between those cases. So far, though, I haven’t seen any such hypotheses that match the observed fingerprints of GHG’s and are remotely physically plausible – “Just So Stories” notwithstanding.
    Having read the site your name links to (and having some experience in deductive and inductive logic myself), I believe you are simply over-complicating matters. Predictions based upon physics are eminently testable – you’ve just overdefined yourself as part of the framework you put forth on your (overly complex) website.
    All that said, considering the amount of work you put into your website, I suspect you are unlikely to be convinced. My hope is that other (less ‘locked in’) readers will find something useful in this discussion.
    Adieu

    By this response, KR fails to provide the citation I had requested to the statistical sample by which AGW might be refuted. The unavailability of such a citation would prove AGW to be irrefutable, thus lying outside science.

    KR’s discursion on modus ponens and modus tollens is flawed and misleading and does nothing to diminish the requirement for refutability by reference to a statistical sample. His statements that If A then {B, C, D, E…} and If not {B, C, D, E…} then not A match the pattern of neither modus ponens nor modus tollens unless the set {B, C, D, E…}represents a proposition (such as B AND C AND D AND E but if it represents a proposition this proposition can be represented by a single symbol such asB; replacement by a
    B leaves my argument intact.
    While KR claims AGW to be obvious to all who view the observational data with an open mind, what he has succeeded in doing is helping me to prove AGW to be a pseudoscience.

  113. Maybe I’ll get it right on the 3rd try!

    Terry Oldberg
    You are demonstrating a basic error here. The test form is actually a modus tollens, not a modus polens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens), in that the set of consequences (not a single consequence, but rather multiple consequences/fingerprints) must be present for the consequences to be true. And each hypothesis (antecedent) has multiple consequences/predictions, not just one.
    In other words:
    If A then {B, C, D, E…}
    If not {B, C, D, E…} then not A
    The set of consequences matches greenhouse gas emissions, and invalidates other explanations
    Your formulation is strictly one of modus ponens, starting with the observation of the antecedent “A” and checking for “B” as a tied result, in other words testing the relationship between antecedent and consequent. What I am describing, and in fact what is present even in Arrhenius 1896, are a set of consequences driven by the physics that will be observed if the antecedent becomes true – and the presence or absence of those consequences are very very testable.
    I will note that this is not an absolute proof of “A”, but rather a disproof of various alternatives. If another antecedent could be found that also matched the set of consequences/fingerprints, other tests would have to be found to distinguish between those cases. So far, though, I haven’t seen any such hypotheses that match the observed fingerprints of GHG’s and are remotely physically plausible – “Just So Stories” notwithstanding.
    Having read the site your name links to (and having some experience in deductive and inductive logic myself), I believe you are simply over-complicating matters. Predictions based upon physics are eminently testable – you’ve just overdefined yourself as part of the framework you put forth on your (overly complex) website.
    All that said, considering the amount of work you put into your website, I suspect you are unlikely to be convinced. My hope is that other (less ‘locked in’) readers will find something useful in this discussion.
    Adieu

    By this response, KR fails to provide the citation I had requested to the statistical sample by which AGW might be refuted. The unavailability of such a citation would prove AGW to be irrefutable, thus lying outside science.

    KR’s discursion on modus ponens and modus tollens is flawed and misleading and does nothing to diminish the requirement for refutability by reference to a statistical sample. His statements that If A then {B, C, D, E…} and If not {B, C, D, E…} then not A match the pattern of neither modus ponens nor modus tollens unless the set {B, C, D, E…}represents a proposition (such as B AND C AND D AND E but if {B, C, D, E…} represents a proposition this proposition can be represented by a single symbol such asB; replacement by a B leaves my argument intact.
    While KR claims AGW to be obvious to all who view the observational data with an open mind, what he has succeeded in doing is helping me to prove AGW to be a pseudoscience.

  114. I conducted an experiment tonight investigating whether the date of the first hurricane or named storm has anything to do with the number of named storms expected in the year.
    I could determine no trend at all! Frankly, I was floored.

    Here is the sample using the storms from

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/hurdat/tracks1851to2010_atl_reanal.txt

    Grouped into the past 31, 61, and 160 year sets
    Column A: the date of the storm of the year.
    Column B, C, D are formated as
    Number of Storms per year | Number of years where the first storm was on that day or later.

    Column B covers 1980-2010,
    Column C covers 1950-2010,
    Column D covers all years in the nhc database.

    *A”————– “B” ————- “C” ———- “D”
    Date_____30yr text_____60yr text________ 160yr text
    01/01_____ 12.0| 31_____ 10.9| 61________ 9.0| 160
    05/01_____ 12.0| 29_____ 10.9| 57________ 9.0| 155
    05/10_____ 11.9| 27_____ 10.8| 55________ 8.9| 152
    05/20_____ 11.9| 27_____ 10.9| 53________ 8.7| 145
    06/01_____ 11.9| 25_____ 10.9| 48________ 8.6| 136
    06/05_____ 11.6| 24_____ 10.7| 44________ 8.5| 130
    06/08_____ 11.9| 23_____ 10.8| 43________ 8.6| 127
    06/11_____ 11.2| 21_____ 10.5| 40________ 8.4| 121
    06/15_____ 11.2| 20_____ 10.6| 36________ 8.4| 108
    06/19_____ 11.5| 17_____ 10.8| 33________ 8.3| 100
    06/23_____ 11.5| 17_____ 11.0| 31________ 8.3| 93
    06/27_____ 11.1| 15_____ 10.7| 27________ 8.1| 84
    07/01_____ 11.6| 13_____ 10.9| 25________ 8.3| 80
    07/05_____ 11.6| 13_____ 10.8| 24________ 8.2| 73
    07/09_____ 11.6| 13_____ 10.8| 24________ 8.3| 71
    07/13_____ 11.6| 13_____ 10.8| 24________ 8.3| 69
    07/17_____ 11.6| 11_____ 10.8| 22________ 8.2| 65
    07/21_____ 11.6| 11_____ 10.8| 21________ 8.2| 64
    07/25_____ 11.4| 10_____ 10.7| 19________ 8.0| 60
    07/29_____ 11.1| 09_____ 10.1| 17________ 7.7| 57
    08/02_____ 10.8| 08_____ 9.8| 13________ 7.4| 46
    08/06_____ 8.8| 05_____ 8.6| 10________ 6.8| 39
    08/11_____ 9.3| 03_____ 8.6| 07________ 6.5| 29
    08/15_____ 8.5| 02_____ 7.2| 05________ 6.0| 25
    08/17_____ 13.0| 01_____ 8.0| 04________ 6.0| 23
    08/22_____ .0| 00_____ 6.3| 03________ 5.2| 14

    for instance for Aug, 11, there are three years where the first named storm happened on or after Aug. 11: They were 1980, 1983, and 1984, with 11, 4, and 13 storms.

    Today, on June 23, about half of the previous years would have had their first storm by now. Even so, it makes little difference in the number of storms to be expected in the rest of the year. It is not the way I would have bet.

    I have not stratified for AMO state or USA Landfalls.

  115. MartinGAtkins says:

    Θ/360 x 2 x Π x Γ
    θ/360 × 2 × π × r

  116. MartinGAtkins says:

    ((2 × π) × r) × (θ/360)

  117. Rayshelon says:

    Wow! Great thinking! JK

  118. John B: skeptics are not scientists

    Now that statement begs a host of questions and observations.

    Let’s look at the Wiki definition of scientist and (for argument) engineers.

    A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

    An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical and practical problems. Engineers design materials, structures, machines and systems while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, safety and cost.[1][2] The word engineer is derived from the Latin root ingenium, meaning “cleverness”.[3]
    Engineers are grounded in applied sciences, and their work in research and development is distinct from the basic research focus of scientists.[2] The work of engineers forms the link between scientific discoveries and the applications that meet the needs of society.[1]

    Scientific skepticism is the practice of questioning the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence or reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing “the extension of certified knowledge”…..
    Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.
    Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds – rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.
    From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam’s Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.[6]

    So to be a scientist, one must use the scientific method. I note in passing there is no mention of “post-normal scientific method”.

    Also in the definition of scientist, the activity to find solutions to practical problems seems to fall into the realm of the engineer. So when it comes to proposals to fight CAGW, engineers, not scientists, ought to be in the driver’s seats. [Question: what percent of the IPCC are engineers?]

    Now let’s consider Scientific Skepticism, something that is “part of the scientific method”. “Sceience itself may be … thought of as an organized form of skepticism.” Can you be a scientist and not be a skeptic at the same time? If you are not a skeptic, you are only masquerading as a scientist.

    To close the circle, indeed all scientific skeptics need not be scientists. Many, a great many, are people trained in engineering. Engineers must always be skeptical of their own work. To double check for errors, for it is drilled into them in training that errors cost time, money and sometimes lives. Engineers are always trying to find a better, easier, less costly way to deliver the solutions to problems that meet the needs of society.

    If it takes an engineer to point out a error of a scientist, such as the Causation of LOD in Mörner above, that is skepticism at its best.

    Stephen Rasey, Ph. D.
    B.Sc. Geophysical Engineering
    Ph. D. Mineral Economics (Operations Research)
    Colorado School of Mines.

  119. Got it. Kind of new to this, so appreciate the test page.

  120. a jones says:

    That Global temperature records show that the world has suffered an unprecedented and fast warming over the last fifty years.

    [Reply] Do not adjust your goggles. TB-mod

  121. Bob Tisdale says:

    Excuse me for assuming the error in attribution was your fault. But it had been in place for 2 hours before I replied, and you apparently had seen no need to correct the error.

  122. a jones says:

    Thankyou Moderator TB for those few kind words.

    But the quote was merely a test to see how WordPress handles certain types and formats of text. It does not represent my views. I am sorry I did not make this clear but did not imagine that anyone would take a text test as being an opinion.

    This is why it is called test I believe.

    Or as handled by WordPress:

    STARTIT

    That Global temperature records show that the world has suffered an unprecedented and fast warming over the last fifty years.

    [Reply] Do not adjust your goggles. TB-mod

    ENDIT

    Kindest Regards

  123. John Whitman says:

    Moderators,

    Just a test of some html commands before I actually post it in a thread.

    John

    *******************

    Dave H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    “”””””Many, many Monckton apologists here.””””””

    = = = = = =

    Dave H,

    Likewise I think my paraphrase of your quote is true.

    Many, many Monckton Gore apologists acolytes here.

  124. Willem says:

    Missing heat found in oceans .

    Tracing the upper ocean’s ‘missing heat’
    28 juli 2011
    Caroline Katsman and Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, KNMI
    Against expectations, the upper ocean (from 0 to 700 meter depth) has not warmed since 2003. A recent KNMI study shows that an eight-year interruption of the rise expected from global warming is not exceptional. It can be explained by natural variability of the climate, in particular the climate oscillation El Niño in the Pacific Ocean and changes in ocean currents in the North Atlantic Ocean. Recent observations point to an upcoming resumption of the heating of the upper ocean.

    These question cannot be answered using observations alone, as the available time series are too short and the data not accurate enough. We therefore used climate model output generated in the ESSENCE project, a collaboration of KNMI and Utrecht University that generated 17 simulations of the climate with the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model to sample the natural variability of the climate system. When compared to the available observations, the model describes the ocean temperature rise and variability well.

    read more:

    http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/99641/tracing_the_upper_oceans_missing_heat

  125. Bob Tisdale says:

    I wrote:

    Craig and Nicola: You’ve presented a very limited number of paleoclimatological reconstructions to confirm a 60-year cycle, which appears to be the backbone of this paper. Do other paleoclimatological studies support a 60-year cycle or is the 60-year cycle limited to the handful of studies presented? Does the “PDO” in the referenced paleoclimatelogical paper represent the SST of the North Pacific or the PDO as defined by JISAO?

    It was a loaded question since I knew one of the answers. I had written a post about the lack of a 60-

  126. phlogiston says:

    Smokey says:
    August 13, 2011 at 11:08 am

    phlogiston,

    No doubt. click

    Looks like even his cheek muscles have definition.

  127. Return of the Jam says:

    You mean there are people who think life on earth was “designed” by some being, but they don’t think it was a deity? Who else do they suggest, extraterrestrials? That would mean all creationists are Christian fundamendalists, or islamists or whatever, but some are ufologists? Is that what you’re saying? I’m baffled. :)

    Testing to see if blockquote tags work…


  128. Mean Low (min var 0.1)
    Jun Jul Aug Jun Jul Aug
    --- Unchanged since June
    Peterson et Al 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.8 2.8 2.8
    Hamilton 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.5 3.5 3.5
    Stroeve et al 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6
    Morison and Unt. 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7
    Anderson 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0
    Grumbine 4.4 3.9
    Tivy 4.5 3.9
    Wang 5.0 4.5
    Egan 5.6 5.5
    ---June, July, Aug revisions
    Lindsay and Zhan 4.9 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.7 3.7
    Folkerts 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.0 4.0
    Lukovich et al 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4
    arbetter et al 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.4
    Beitsch et al 4.8 4.7 4.6 3.1 4.2 4.3
    Zhang 4.1 4.3 4.6 3.5 3.8 4.0
    WUWT 5.5 5.1 5.0 5.1 4.7 4.6
    Kauker et al 5.4 5.5 5.2 4.8 5.0 5.1
    Canadian Ice Ser 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.5 4.5
    Wadhams 4.1 0.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
    --- July, Aug
    Randles 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.5
    Meier et al 4.7 4.5 4.1 4.1
    Blanchard-Wigg. 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.1
    --- July, Aug, only
    Liljergren 4.6 3.7
    Wu et al 4.6 4.4
    Shibata et al 5.4 5.3


  129. __________________Mean________________Low (min var 0.1)____
    __________________Jun__Jul__Aug______Jun__Jul__Aug
    --- Unchanged since June
    Peterson et Al____4.0__4.0__4.0______2.8__2.8__2.8
    Hamilton__________4.4__4.4__4.4______3.5__3.5__3.5
    Stroeve et al_____4.7__4.7__4.7______4.6__4.6__4.6
    Morison and Unt.__4.8__4.8__4.8______4.7__4.7__4.7
    Anderson__________4.1_______4.1______4.0_______4.0
    Grumbine__________4.4________________3.9__________
    Tivy______________4.5________________3.9__________
    Wang______________5.0________________4.5__________
    Egan______________5.6________________5.5__________
    ---June, July, Aug revisions
    Lindsay and Zhan__4.9__4.1__4.1______4.5__3.7__3.7
    Folkerts__________4.7__4.2__4.2______4.5__4.0__4.0
    Lukovich et al____4.6__4.6__4.5______4.5__4.5__4.4
    arbetter et al____4.4__4.3__4.5______4.3__4.2__4.4
    Beitsch et al_____4.8__4.7__4.6______3.1__4.2__4.3
    Zhang_____________4.1__4.3__4.6______3.5__3.8__4.0
    WUWT______________5.5__5.1__5.0______5.1__4.7__4.6
    Kauker et al______5.4__5.5__5.2______4.8__5.0__5.1
    Canadian Ice Ser__5.0__4.7__4.7______4.9__4.5__4.5
    Wadhams___________4.1_______4.0______4.0_______3.9
    --- July, Aug
    Randles________________4.4__4.3___________4.3__3.5
    Meier et al____________4.7__4.5___________4.1__4.1
    Blanchard-Wigg.________4.6__4.6___________4.1__4.1
    --- July, Aug, only
    Liljergren__________________4.6________________3.7
    Wu et al____________________4.6________________4.4
    Shibata et al_______________5.4________________5.3

  130. John W says:

    “I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!”
    Michael E. Mann to Phil Jones
    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1076359809.txt

  131. Jer0me says:

    “There is no reason why we should wait to get started down this path,” said Abkowitz. “As long as our approach remains flexible, we can adapt as better information becomes available.”

  132. Jer0me says:

    “There is no reason why we should wait to get started down this path,” said Abkowitz. “As long as our approach remains flexible, we can adapt as better information becomes available.”

  133. John Whitman says:

    test

  134. eyesonu says:

    Is there a way to ‘bookmark’ the last comment on a thread so as to return to it at a latter time without chasing through all the comments?

    Thanks

  135. kramer says:

    quoted text

  136. Rational Debate says:


    ;,_ ,
    _uP~"b d"u,
    dP' "b ,d" "o
    d" , `b d"' "b
    l] [ " `l, d" lb
    Ol ? " "b`"=uoqo,_ "l
    ,dBb "b "b, `"~~TObup,_
    ,d" (db.`" "" "tbc,_ `~"Yuu,_
    .d" l`T' '= ~ `""Yu,
    ,dO` gP, `u, b,_ "b7
    d?' ,d" l, `"b,_ `~b "1
    ,8i' dl `l ,ggQOV",dbgq,._" `l lb
    .df' (O, " ,ggQY"~ , @@@@@d"bd~ `b "1
    .df' `" -=@QgpOY"" (b @@@@P db `Lp"b,
    .d( _ "ko "=d_,Q` ,_ " "b,
    Ql . `"qo,._ "tQo,_`""bo ;tb, `"b,
    qQ |L ~"QQQgggc,_.,dObc,opooO `"~~";. __,7,
    qp t\io,_ `~"TOOggQV"""" _,dg,_ =PIQHib.
    `qp `Q["tQQQo,_ ,pl{QOP"' 7AFR`
    ` `tb '""tQQQg,_ p" "b ` .;-.`Vl'
    "Yb `"tQOOo,__ _,edb ` .__ /`/'| |b;=;.__
    `"tQQQOOOOP""`"\QV;qQObob"`-._`\_~~-._
    """" ._ / | |oP"\_ ~\ ~\_~\
    `~"\ic,qggddOOP"| | ~\ `\~-._
    ,qP`"""|" | `\ `; `\ `\
    _ _,p" | | `\`; | |
    unknown "boo,._dP" `\_ `\ `\| `\ ;
    `"7tY~' `\ `\ `|_ |
    `~\ |

  137. Rational Debate says:

    Well, looks like that won’t work – unless the actual post winds up different than the test version shown pre-moderation, but I suspect not. I was trying to see if the “code” tag would work to display a bit of ASCII art so I could add a cat to the cat’s eye view photo of Charles the Moderator on Anthony’s recent post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/21/our-own-ctm-is-a-nasty-cruel-man

    Ah well, so it goes. Sneaky kitties can’t be counted on to appear on command!

  138. Rational Debate says:
  139. Rational Debate says:

    One more try on images…

  140. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: eyesonu says: September 5, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Is there a way to ‘bookmark’ the last comment on a thread so as to return to it at a latter time without chasing through all the comments? Thanks

    I would LOVE to hear how others deal with this same issue and hope someone has a more convenient method than I’m about to mention, although this is better than nothing.

    For whatever it’s worth, in Firefox v. 3.6 (and I suspect other versions too), if you bookmark the page with the last comment you read showing when you add the bookmark it will often (/usually/always?) bookmark with the /#comment-123456 in the bookmark. When you select the bookmark it will load the tab at that comment (or very very close to it).

    Drawback, of course, is then when you read more later, you’d have to delete the bookmark, and then add a newer one before you left again, or you’ll just reappear at the previous post you ended on rather than the last one.

    Or, I think you can right click bookmark on the date of the last comment you’ve read, and create the bookmark that way – but there’s still the problem of having to delete and recreate the bookmark each time you return to the thread and read more.

    I don’t see how to find the comment number without bookmarking – if there IS an easy way to discover the comment number, then you could manually cut/paste & change the comment number in the first bookmark link you made, rather than deleting and re-bookmarking. If anyone knows a way, please post it!

    I really wish there was a simple way to track and return to the last post read also!!!

  141. Rational Debate says:

    To Anthony or Moderator: Just a suggestion… please consider adding the image and code tags I tried in my posts above to the main article under a catagory of basic html commands that don’t work as of xyz date…(e.g., the date would be useful, because with time some may become available that weren’t previously as the comment system with wordpress gets upgraded/modified – so people could see if it’s been a long time since it’s been tried and check for changes that way). Thanks for considering an addition of this nature.

  142. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Just check html tags in a draft post.

    John

    ——————–

    DRAFT POST

    Anthony,

    Out of respect for you as a gracious host here, I will not in the future on WUWT use the acronym SS for Skeptical Science. I will use no acronym at all for Skeptical Science here at WUWT. Instead I will refer to it as Skeptical Science with the bold first letters. OK?

    dana, surely you cannot whine about that?

    John

  143. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    CaCO&8323;

  144. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    CaCO8323

  145. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    CaCO3

  146. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Gee…calcium carbonate…..at last….(CaO + CO2)…

  147. HankH says:

    Testing the HTML code for degree…

    25°C (77°F)

  148. wermet says:

    strike no strike

  149. Philip Mulholland says:

    Rational Debate @ September 21, 2011 at 11:04 am

    re post by: eyesonu says: September 5, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    Is there a way to ‘bookmark’ the last comment on a thread so as to return to it at a latter time without chasing through all the comments? Thanks
    I would LOVE to hear how others deal with this same issue and hope someone has a more convenient method than I’m about to mention, although this is better than nothing.

    Nothing could be simpler! Just click on the date stamp directly below the poster’s name.
    e.g. September 21, 2011 at 11:04 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/test-2/#comment-748972

    & September 5, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/test-2/#comment-737079

  150. Ric Werme says:

    Hmm, this messed up: You can write CO₂ as CO₂
    Space after amp;: CO& #8322; Hash as #35: CO&#8322;.

  151. clipe says:

    U+0021

    !

  152. clipe says:

    ¡

    ¿

    æ

  153. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    Hmm, this messed up: You can write CO₂ as CO₂
    Space after amp;: CO& #8322; Hash as #35: CO₂.

    CO& #8322

  154. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    O8322
    O&8322:

  155. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    O&8322;

  156. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    O₂

  157. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    Took long enough….

  158. clipe says:

    Three blind mice, three blind mice,
    See how they run, see how they run,
    They all ran after the farmer's wife,
    Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
    Did you ever see such a thing in your life,
    As three blind mice?

  159. clipe says:

    Three blind mice, three blind mice,
    See how they run, see how they run,
    They all ran after the farmer's wife,
    Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
    Did you ever see such a thing in your life,
    As three blind mice?

  160. clipe says:

    Three blind mice, three blind mice,
    See how they run, see how they run,
    They all ran after the farmer's wife,
    Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
    Did you ever see such a thing in your life,
    As three blind mice?

  161. Gail Combs says:

    Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. A second study finds College students lack scientific literacy …by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. and another study finds href=”http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htmf”>Every Textbook Left Behind

  162. Gail Combs says:

    But then it now IS a joke and corporations are no longer willing to hire US grads. Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. A second study finds “College students lack scientific literacy” …by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. and another study finds Every Textbook Left Behind

  163. Gail Combs says:

    As you read this look at the whole picture including the land grab by Al Gore’s New Forest Co. funded by the World Bank and HSBC. Consider David Rockefeller’s PRIVATE annual luncheons at his family’s Westchester County estate with the IMF and World Bank and the world’s finance ministers.

    Consider Clinton’s admission that he in part through ratifying the WTO and NAFTA, was responsible for the 2008 food riots and the annihilation of Haiti’s farming.

    At this point I rather FOLLOW THE MONEY then be hoodwinked by pretty words.

    David Rockefeller from his 2002 autobiography “Memoirs”, page 405:
    “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.

    If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

    From Rockefeller family friend, Sir Julian Huxley, Director-General of the United Nation’s human-rights organization. His document UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy (1946)

    “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background…its education program can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to world organization…Political unifications in some sort of world government will be required…Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenics problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

    From the United nations on the subject of seeds:
    “FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia in order to stimulate the development of a vibrant seed industry[/b]…An effective seed regulation harmonization process involves dialogue amongst all relevant stakeholders from both private and public sectors. Seed quality assurance, variety release, plant variety protection, biosafety, plant quarantine and phytosanitary issues are among the major technical areas of a regional harmonized seed system. The key to a successful seed regulation harmonization is a strong political will of the governments involved…” (quote is several years old and may have been changed) http://www.fao.org/ag/portal/archive/detail/en/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=5730&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1886&cHash=7f04326e35

    Direct from the Rockefeller Foundation:
    A Timeline of Dr. Norman Borlaug’s Work Involving the Rockefeller Foundation

    1944. Dr. Borlaug joins the Foundation as the plant pathologist in the Rockefeller Foundation-Mexican Ministry of Agriculture Cooperative Program….

    1960. Under a joint UN Food and Agriculture Organization-Rockefeller Foundation training program, Dr. Borlaug begins training Asian wheat scientist in Mexico…..

    1961. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation establish the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines to do for rice what Dr. Borlaug has done for wheat.

    1963. Building on the Rockefeller Foundation’s agriculture program in India, Dr. Borlaug begins testing Mexican semi-dwarf wheat varieties in India and Pakistan…..

    1966. The Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation establish the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico, building on the Rockefeller Foundation cooperative program. Dr. Borlaug is seconded by the Rockefeller Foundation to CIMMYT as Director of the International Wheat Improvement Program.

    1968. William Guad, Director of USAID declares a “Green Revolution” is occurring in South Asia, based on Dr. Borlaug’s wheat varieties and IRRI’s rice varieties.

    1970. Dr. Borlaug is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the Green Revolution…..

    1983. Dr. Borlaug retires from the Rockefeller Foundation and CIMMYT at age 65 and is made a Lifetime Fellow by the Rockefeller Foundation Board of Trustees……

  164. NeedleFactory says:

    The AGW proponents have often tried to beat back skeptics, using “peer review” as a club.
    Therefore today’s a href=”http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/our-blogs-ourselves/”>comments</a by Nobel Economist Paul Krugman are of interest.

    He says "the journals ceased being a means of communication a long time ago – more than 20 years ago for sure. New research would be unveiled in seminars, circulated as NBER Working Papers, long before anything showed up in a journal. Whole literatures could flourish, mature, and grow decadent before the first article got properly published [...]. The journals have long served as tombstones, certifications for tenure committees, rather than a forum in which ideas get argued."

  165. clipe says:

    test
    test

  166. clipe says:

    Therefore today’s comments by Nobel Economist Paul Krugman are of interest.

  167. clipe says:

    NeedleFactory
    Text

  168. clipe says:

    Oops!

    Link text

    Same as above without spaces.

  169. clipe says:

    Link text..

  170. clipe says:

    [i]a href=”url”>Link text[/i] wrapped in <…

  171. clipe says:

    a href=”url”>Link text wrapped in <…

    Ok, no more beer for me tonight. Hic.

  172. Wellington says:

    Here is some text before image.

    Here is some text after image.

  173. Wellington says:

    Text before …

    See Test Image.

    And text after …

  174. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Just testing an embedded link;’

    When Scott Mandia and his fellow ‘Rapid Response Climate Team’ come, who you gonna call?

    Call Anthony’s Skeptical Ghostbusters!!!

    John

  175. David Middleton says:

    Sleepalot says:
    November 2, 2011 at 4:26 am
    NZ Willy says: November 2, 2011 at 12:18 am

    “It is ludicrous how anthropologists deny that man was responsible for the mass extinction, when it so obviously was the case. Climate was irrelevant in “recent” (c 100,000yr) times.”

    Except, of course, that Africa remains full of large, tasty animals.

    Grey lensman says:
    November 2, 2011 at 4:57 am
    So thats why all the elephants are extinct in Africa and Asia. Modern stone age hunters. not Neanderthals, Peking Man or Java man or even Davidsovians. All those mega mammals lived in USA until Clovis man arrived. Seems that Clovis man did not eat bison or elk or deer only mega mammals.

    The megafauna of Africa and human ancestors had co-existed for at least several hundred thousand years. As humans spread out through Africa and South Asia, the megafauna had time and space to adjust to human predation. The megafauna of North America, Europe and North Asia had far less time and space to adapt to human predation.

    But i seem to recall that Clovis man went extinct about the same time.

    Fake science, fake assumptions, are the same in every field.

    Jack and Dave can make a simple crop circle thus they made every crop circle.

    Have we not moved beyond that grade of science?

    The Clovis people did not go extinct…

    Early Paleoindian (9500 B.C. to 9000 B.C.)

    The first subperiod, Early Paleoindian, is characterized by Clovis or Clovis-like large fluted stone points. It is believed that the distribution of these points throughout all the environmental zones in the Southeast represents the initial exploration and colonization of the region. Great mobility of the Paleoindians of this subperiod is suggested by the finding of stone tools and debitage traded or transported by these small bands over hundreds of kilometers from their quarry source. The Southeast, at this time, consisted of three broad environmental zones, running west to east. They were cool-climate boreal forests, temperate oak-hickory-pine forests, and subtropical sandy scrub. The last area was confined to the Florida peninsula and the coastal plain in the Southeast, which extended several kilometers outward from its present location due to the lower sea level. Megafauna of the Late Pleistocene was found in these three environmental zones.

    Middle Paleoindian (9000 B.C. to 8500 B.C.)

    The second subperiod, the Middle Paleoindian, is characterized by a number of fluted and unfluted points, both larger and smaller than Clovis points. The point types of this subperiod in the Southeast are Cumberland, Redstone, Suwannee, Beaver Lake, Quad, Coldwater, and Simpson. This subperiod is viewed as a time when the population was adapting to optimum environmental resource zones instead of randomly moving throughout the Southeast. Concentration on specific zones and resources may account for the variation in the stone points of this subperiod.

    Late Paleoindian (8500 B.C. to 7900 B.C.)

    The last subperiod, the Late Paleoindian, is characterized by Dalton and other side-notched-style points. The replacement of fluted point forms by nonfluted points is believed to reflect a change in the adaptive strategy, away from hunting Late Pleistocene megafauna toward a more generalized hunting of small, modern game, such as deer, and a collecting subsistence strategy within the southern pine forests as they replaced the boreal forests.

    Chert deposits may have attracted Paleoindian groups of this subperiod to specific locales in order to replenish their stone tools. Such a tendency may have constrained these groups to a specific landscape, setting the stage for the intensive regional specialization that characterized the succeeding Archaic Period. It is possible that large Paleoindian sites in the Southeast are permanent or semipermanent base camps from which resources of specific territories were exploited. Trade or transportation of stone tools appear to decrease as Late Paleoindian groups relied on local materials for their needs.

    LINK

  176. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Just checking some nested ‘blockquote’ tags

    ————-

    John Majikthise says:
    November 2, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Jeff Alberts says:November 2, 2011 at 7:42 pm
    …I would be concerned that persons unknown at UVA might be quietly culling the archive of the most incriminating stuff, if such things exist.

    In this one statement you accuse without evidence UVa employees of illegal acts, and, without trial or evidence, manage to state that “someone” is a criminal!

    Well done!

    Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    I accused no one. I merely speculated that such a thing was very possible. Way to read more into what someone types.

    I would think that the court would want to maintain the integrity of the evidence in this case. Would you let an accused car thief keep possession of the car until the trial is over?

  177. Mr Lynn says:

    squareheaded says:
    November 3, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Mr Lynn says:
    November 3, 2011 at 8:30 am

    For the empiricist, ‘belief’ is antithetical to science.

    Surely you jest. Science, like mathematics, is founded upon assumptions and axioms, aka, “beliefs” or “faith”.

    Yes, the scientific method depends upon the assumptions that (a) there is a real world ‘out there’, and (b) we can improve our always-imperfect understanding of that world by propounding falsifiable hypotheses about it, and testing them. I suppose you may say that the empiricist ‘believes’ in these assumptions; I prefer to say that he accepts them as a rational, practical basis for action.

    The epistemological assumptions underlying the scientific method are different from the axioms of mathematics, which are purely logical constructs.

    /Mr Lynn

  178. Spector says:

    This is an example of the use of the HTML codes that specify ‘preformated text’ beginning with angle bracket contents “pre” and ending with “/pre”

    <pre>

    Non-Harmonic Cosine Approximation of
         HadCRUT3v Data 1860-2011
    
    Data to    Error Ratio (dB): 11.71
    Offset Constant  (deg C): -0.0093
                
               Element    Element    Element
    Element    Period    Base Date  Amplitude
    Number     Years       Year       deg C
    
      1        12.937    1929.870    0.0194
      2        14.910    1928.137    0.0324
      3        20.786    1941.038    0.0484
      4        32.612    1936.867    0.0284
      5        49.041    1932.746    0.0338
      6        63.325    1944.482    0.1098
      7        88.105    1921.076    0.0495
      8       285.262    2040.054    0.1877
      9       300.799    2042.613    0.1878
    

    </pre>

  179. TrueNorthist says:

    Just testing a virtual keyboard. ➸✬❓➝❗➙✢➵. ♪♫♬♿♍☯☗♠☛☨ Seems to work with CA Assistant, but will it make it through WordPress’s code? ១២៣៤៥៦៧៨៩ цфк ши кгыышфи ۱۲۳۴۵۶۷۸۹ ぬふあうえおやゆよわほ Just for the record, that is 1 through 0 in other languages. Just testing if it makes it through WP.

    Cheers☺

  180. Urederra says:

    Just testing whether I can post or not.

  181. Urederra says:

    Ummm…. weird… I tried to post on the carbon article, but It seems I couldn’t. I tried 3 times, so maybe I posted 3 posts in a row saying essentially the same. Sorry ’bout that.

  182. Spector says:

    Image Test

    code

    <img src=”http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png/800px-ModtranRadiative%20ForcingDoubleCO2.png” alt=”Modtran3 v1.3 Upward Irradiance at 20 km” width=”800″ height=”513″ />

  183. Spector says:

    OK, I see this is not supposed to work as a matter of policy. No problem.

  184. clipe says:





    ²

    [very good! ~jove, mod]

  185. Roger Knights says:

    Three Strikes Against the IPCC’s Asia Group

    Here’s a bone for the gang to gnaw on and flesh out (to mangle a metaphor). I haven’t fully researched the matter, but what I’ve noticed is intriguing.

    During a dispute with one of the one-star Amazon-reviewers (T. Bruner) of Donna Laframboise’s Delinquent Teenager book about the IPCC, I wrote:

    “She [DL] wrote, at Location 763 in Chapter 14: ‘When the IPCC declared that three-quarters of a billion people in India and China depend on glaciers for their water supply, is it not strange that its only source for this claim was the Stern review?’ The link she supplied there takes one to that section of the IPCC report, 10.4.2, where one can see the single citation for oneself, as I have done.”

    (My exchange with T. Bruner starts on the 5th comments page of his review, linked to below, but the most relevant material is on the 6th page. http://www.amazon.com/review/R3D6YKUGYE4WA0/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg5?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2983WIRKIRW6A&cdPage=5&asin=B005UEVB8Q&store=digital-text&cdThread=TxO5HUAZSS2GUT#wasThisHelpful )

    Bruner pointed out that the Stern Review in turn had cited, as its authority for that statement, Barnett et al., which, unlike Stern, was a peer-reviewed and before-the-deadline publication. He added that the Fresh Water Group had cited Barnett alone, in Section 3.4.3 (of AR4).

    This made me wonder: Why had the Asia group taken the risk of violating the IPCC’s rules by citing Stern alone? Wouldn’t citing Barnett in addition, or instead, have been prudent?

    It’s unlikely that the group hadn’t been aware of the Barnett paper, given that it was cited by Stern, and given its relevance, recency, and prominent & prestigious source, which could be found in Stern’s bibliography:

    Barnett, T.P., J.C, Adam, and D.P. Lettenmaier (2005): ‘Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions’, Nature 438: 303-309

    So this relevant, recent, and prestigiously published primary source was omitted in favor of citing a gray, secondary, after-the-deadline (2007, hence unpublished per the IPCC’s rules) source. (It’s not cited anywhere in the Asia Group’s chapter, per its References section.)

    Why? Let’s get started by looking at what the two sources and the Asia Group said. I’ve emphasized the most pertinent passages. (h/t to T. Bruner for the quotes.):

    1. Barnett et al., as summarized by the Fresh Water Group, in AR4 WGII Section 3.4.3:
    “Hence, water supply in areas fed by glacial melt water from the Hindu Kush and Himalayas, on which hundreds of millions of people in China and India depend, will be negatively affected (Barnett et al., 2005).”
    Go to 5th paragraph, last sentence, here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch3s3-4-3.html

    2. Stern Review, 2007, Section 3.2, page 63:
    “Climate change will have serious consequences for people who depend heavily on glacier meltwater to maintain supplies during the dry season, including large parts of the Indian sub-continent, over quarter of a billion people in China, and tens of millions in the Andes. (Barnett et al., 2005)”
    Go to p. 8 at this link: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_3_How_climate_change_will_affect_people_around_the_world_.pdf

    4. Asia Group, in AR4 WGII Section 10.4.2.1:
    “Climate change-related melting of glaciers could seriously affect half a billion people in the Himalaya-Hindu-Kush region and a quarter of a billion people in China who depend [unqualified]on glacial melt for their water supplies (Stern, 2007).”
    Go to the second paragraph, second sentence, here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-4-2.html

    Strike one: If the Asia group had cited Barnett at all it would have exposed its claims about “¾ billion” and “seriously affected” as being hyperbole. (Barnett et al. had used the less-exaggerated, less-alarmist words, “hundreds of millions” and “negatively affected.”) It’s not a big leap to infer that that was the motive for its omission. What other motive could there have been?

    (“Hundreds of millions” suggests the lower end of the one-hundred-million-to-one-billion range. If Barnett et al. had had three-quarters of a billion in mind when they wrote “hundreds of millions,” they’d likely have indicated that they were thinking of the upper part of the range by saying something like “over a half-million” or “many hundreds of millions.”)

    Strike two: The Asia Group lied by omission by omitting Stern’s key qualification, “during the dry season.” Including it would have muted the alarmist impact of their sentence. It’s not a big leap to infer that that was the motive for its omission. What other motive could there have been?

    Strike three: The Asia Group’s gray-lit-backed claim of a 2035 melt-by date now looks likely to be a similarly culpable instance of cherry-picking in the service of alarmist hyperbole, rather than clueless unfamiliarity with the dynamics of glaciers. They were likely knaves, not fools, in other words.

    One reason it’s “likely” is the context provided by the two “strikes” above. Another reason is the context provided by their refusal to correct the error in their 2035 melt-by date when reviewers pointed it out to them, and their turning a deaf ear to Dr. Georg Kaser’s subsequent attempts to have it corrected.

    (I’m skeptical of the IPCC’s excuse that Kaser sent his first complaint to the wrong department—wouldn’t they have forwarded it?—and that his second letter wasn’t received—a “likely story.” It seems more likely to me that the group couldn’t possibly admit to ignoring his letters—so it didn’t.)

    Strike four: The three strikes above suggest that the IPCC has been infected by gang-of-green alarmism. The IPCC’s apologists have spun a deceptive damage-control message about the 2035 error by attributing it to ignorance, not malice—to cluelessness, not culpability. In the context of the deceptive pattern described above, that’s hard to believe.

    Obviously, it would be awkward for the IPCC if the second interpretation gained traction, because that would raise the questions, “Where did the gangrene start?”, “How far has it spread?”, “Is amputation needed?”, and “Or maybe a mercy killing?”.

    Paging Dr. Kevorkian!

    ========

    For a brief history of Himalaya-gate, see my comment here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-real-climate-scientist-dr-ray-pierrehumbert/#comment-683880

  186. Gail Combs says:

    Activists and NGOs

    Several years ago I looked into NGOs because of the WTO/Food/Animal ID issue. Here is some relevant stuff from my notes. (The links may no longer work)

    BACKGROUND:

    From a history blog:

    Ignoring Elites, Historians Are Missing a Major Factor in Politics and History
    “… Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. ” http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/11/2005/3/#11068

    Remember the Students for a Democratic Society on campus when you were in college?

    The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’
    “…During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West….Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression…” http://www.heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html

    THE ORIGINS OF NGOs
    Remember Maurice Strong, Chair of the First Earth Summit in 1972 that started CAGW? The guy who said “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” in his opening remarks at Earth Summit II in 1992.

    In brief Maurice Strong worked in Saudi Arabia for a Rockefeller company, Caltex, in 1953. He left Caltex in 1954 to worked at high levels in banking and oil. By 1971, he served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 1972 was Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. He was Co-founder of the WWF and Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the UN.

    Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

    “Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG [Commission on Global Governance] has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations…. http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

    NGOs REPLACE VOTERS in USA
    By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but the implemention of the “regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” [ http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm ] These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.

    THE BEHIND the SCENES PLAYERS

    SCIENTIFIC STUDY Says World’s Stocks Controlled by Select Few
    A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world’s finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system’s vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis…

    The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few

    Alternate links: http://www.livescience.com/9704-world-stocks-controlled-select.html

    http://wprorev.com/2009/08/scientific-study-find-just-few-funds.htm

    The whole Rockefeller/Strong/Saudi/Khashoggi/CIA/Bush/oil/banking interconnections are worth pursuing considering the 1973 Oil Crisis bankrupted third World Countries so they had to get World bank/IMF loans with SAPs strings controlling their governments. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance, Maurice strong of course was a member, was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International.

    Kissinger/rockefeller/Saudi Royal Family connection: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch27.html

    ….:For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – Pg. 405 of David Rockefeller’s Autobiography, 2002

    Strong’s web site: http://www.mauricestrong.net/ in google states: Maurice Strong globalized the environmental movement.

  187. Catherine says:

    THE TRUTH ABOUT SEA LEVELS

    An interesting article in the Spectator by Nils-Axel Morner trashes completely all the scare stories about rising sea levels from the BBC, Gore, and the IPCC.

    See it here http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml

    Here is part of it –

    “…But the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) tells a different story about sea levels worldwide and is worth quoting in some detail: ‘Even under the most conservative scenario, sea level will be about 40cm higher than today by the end of 21st century and this is projected to increase the annual number of people flooded in coastal populations from 13 million to 94 million. Almost 60 per cent of this increase will occur in South Asia.’

    This is nonsense. The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since.

    So any of the trouble attributed to ‘rising sea levels’ must instead be the result of other, local factors and basic misinterpretation. In Bangladesh, for example, increased salinity in the rivers (which has affected drinking water) has in fact been caused by dams in the Ganges, which have decreased the outflow of fresh water.

    Even more damaging has been the chopping down of mangrove trees to clear space for shrimp farms. In one area, 19 square miles of mangrove vegetation in 1988 had by 2005 decreased to barely half a square mile. Mangrove forests offer excellent protection against the damage of cyclones and storms, so inevitably their systematic destruction has drastically increased local vulnerability to these problems.

    At Tuvalu in the Pacific, I found no evidence of flooding — despite claims in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth that it was one of those ‘low-lying Pacific nations’ whose residents have had to ‘evacuate their homes because of rising seas’. In fact the tide gauge of the past 25 years clearly shows there has been no rise.

    But the best-known ‘victim’ of rising sea levels is, without doubt, the Maldives. This myth has been boosted by the opportunism of Mohamed Nasheed, who stars in a new documentary called The Island President. The film’s tagline is ‘To save his country, he has to save our planet’. It is a depressing example of how Hollywood-style melodrama has corrupted climate science. Nasheed has been rehearsing his lines since being elected in 2009. ‘We are drowning, our nation will disappear, we have to relocate the people,’ he repeatedly claims.

    If this is what President Nasheed believes, it seems strange that he has authorised the building of many large waterside hotels and 11 new airports. Or could it perhaps be that he wants to take a cut of the $30 billion fund agreed at an accord in Copenhagen for the poorest nations hit by ‘global warming’? Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister Ahmed Shaheed wrote to the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to express support for the accord.

    The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that ‘there is strong evidence’ of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: ‘Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.’

    Almost every word of this is untrue.

    Satellite altimetry is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.

    In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’

    This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.

    If the ice caps are melting, it is at such a small rate globally that we can hardly see its effects on sea level. I certainly have not been able to find any evidence for it. The sea level rise today is at most 0.7mm a year — though, probably, much smaller.

    “…The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections. There are many urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth — tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions not least among them. But the threat of rising sea levels is an artificial crisis.”

    Strangely, although this article was published a while ago, there has been no mention of it anywhere in the British MSM.

  188. MartinGAtkins says:

    Format test.
    Deg C    Kelvin     SB-Constant     Wm^2
    30         303.5         5.67E-08         481.08
    20         293.5         5.67E-08         420.74
    10         283.5         5.67E-08         366.26
                 293.5                                 422.69 Averages.

  189. Ric Werme says:

    Trademark symbols: ™ … ™

    String:

    Science™ – extrapolating

  190. Steve Case says:

    Poster says: Month D, YYYY at HH:MM XM

    His question

    My Answer

  191. jorgekafkazar says:

    It struck me when I read the post as one of the most bizarre bits of Warmist math digital manipulation I’ve ever seen. It makes no sense to me at all. But I realized after Climategate I that Warmist spewings must get increasingly detached from reality. The actual science is so far at odds with AGW science fiction that Warmists must go further and further into the Twilight Zone every month to keep the hoax going. It’s a Trenberthsty.

  192. Ric Werme says:

    Hey, <h2> worked. Lessee,

    Testing h0
    Regular text

    Testing h1

    Regular text

    Testing h2

    Regular text

    Testing h3

    Regular text

    Testing h4

    Regular text

    Testing h5

    Regular text

    Testing h6

    Regular text
    Testing h7
    Regular text

  193. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Try to instert photo of cool picture of James Hansen in Raider’s hat:

  194. ferd berple says:

    <

  195. ferd berple says:

    < %gt;

  196. ferd berple says:

    >

  197. ferd berple says:

    ferd berple says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.

    I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with WIllis that my proof is incomplete.

    To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,

    space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space

    I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.

    I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:

    space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space

    Flow C takes part of its energy from the surface to ghg H, plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:

    H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C

    Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:

    (result a) H < C

    Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:

    space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space

    D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    However, since F = 0, this becomes

    D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    and from above:

    A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    Therefore we can say

    A + C = D

    and from (result a) above

    D = A + C > A + H

    therefore

    D > A + H

    Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp

    Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)

    since

    Temp(D) = earth without GHG
    Temp(A+H) = earth with GHG

    Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
    QED

  198. ferd berple says:

    ferd berple says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is

    absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a

    result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.

    I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with Willis

    that my origional proof was incomplete.

    To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,

    space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space

    I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this

    allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.

    I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:

    space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space

    Flow C takes part of its energy from the surface to ghg H, plus the net energy absorbed

    directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:

    H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C

    Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG

    atmosphere, that:

    (result a) H < C

    Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:

    space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space

    D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    However, since F = 0, this becomes

    D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    and from above:

    A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    Therefore we can say

    A + C = D

    and from (result a) above

    D = A + C > A + H

    therefore

    D > A + H

    Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp

    Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)

    since

    Temp(D) = earth without GHG
    Temp(A+H) = earth with GHG

    Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
    QED

    While I agree with Willis that the inclusion of H has allowed the surface temperature of the GHG surface to come closer to the surface temperature of the non GHG planet, the GHG planet still has a lower surface temperature.

  199. ferd berple says:

    ferd berple says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.

    I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with Willis that my origional proof was incomplete.

    To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,

    space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space

    I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.

    I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:

    space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space

    Flow C takes part of its energy from the surface to ghg H, plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:

    H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C

    Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:

    (result a) H < C

    Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:

    space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space

    D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    However, since F = 0, this becomes

    D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    and from above:

    A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    Therefore we can say

    A + C = D

    and from (result a) above

    D = A + C > A + H

    therefore

    D > A + H

    Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp

    Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)

    since

    Temp(D) = earth without GHG
    Temp(A+H) = earth with GHG

    Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
    QED

    While I agree with Willis that the inclusion of H has allowed the surface temperature of the GHG surface to come closer to the surface temperature of the non GHG planet, the GHG planet still has a lower surface temperature.

  200. ferd berple says:

    ferd berple says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.

    I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with Willis that my origional proof was incomplete.

    To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,

    space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space

    I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.

    I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:

    space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space

    Flow C takes part of its energy from the surface to ghg H, plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:

    H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C

    Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:

    (result a) H < C

    Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:

    space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space

    D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    However, since F = 0, this becomes

    D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    and from above:

    A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space

    Therefore we can say

    A + C = D

    and from (result a) above

    D = A + C > A + H

    therefore

    D > A + H

    Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp

    Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)

    since

    Temp(D) = surface temp of planet with non GHG atmosphere
    Temp(A+H) = surface temp with GHG atmosphere

    Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
    QED

    While I agree with Willis that the inclusion of H has allowed the surface temperature of the GHG surface to come closer to the surface temperature of the non GHG planet, the GHG planet still has a lower surface temperature.

  201. Myrrh says:

    Re: Residence time of carbon dioxide,

    Dr. Lacis’ argument,…
    The paper also says the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is “measured in thousands of years”. Even the IPCC, prone to exaggeration as it is, puts the residence time at 50-200 years. On notice I can cite three dozen papers dating back to Revelle in the 1950s that find the CO2 residence time to be just seven years, though Professor Lindzen says that for various reasons 40 years is a good central estimate.

    There is so much misdirection about this – the IPCC hides the figures in the bulk of the reports..

    From:

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html

    ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
    NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
    WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA
    by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

    “Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not “decades to centuries” as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25. ….

    For a bar chart of residence times from various papers: http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/09/the-liberal-attack-on-science-acorn-style-the-ipcc-fabrication-of-atmospheric-co2-residency-time.html

    The IPCC is using deliberate misdirection because it needs to pretend that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere when it is physically impossible, so even thousands of years gets bandied around and picked up and repeated by politicians and others as ‘well known’, and, that misdirection is in many forms and subtle and easily missed because the IPCC needs to blame it on man’s input. An example from the Glassman piece:

    5. “The TAR says,

    CO2 naturally cycles rapidly among the atmosphere, oceans and land. However, the removal of the CO2 perturbation added by human activities from the atmosphere takes far longer. This is because of processes that limit the rate at which ocean and terrestrial carbon stocks can increase. Anthropogenic CO2 is taken up by the ocean because of its high solubility (caused by the nature of carbonate chemistry), but the rate of uptake is limited by the finite speed of vertical mixing. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 51.

    The first sentence is semantic gamesmanship to imply that CO2 cycles rapidly only if the CO2 is natural. That conjecture is made specific in the next sentence. The rest is fraught with error.”

    So the real story hidden in the IPCC is that “CO2 naturally cycles rapidly among the atmosphere, oceans and land”.

    Dr. Lacis says ModelE is rooted in well-understood physical processes. If that were so, one would not expect such large fudge-factors (mentioned and quantified in the model’s operating manual) to be necessary.

    It will be helpful to introduce a little elementary climatological physics at this point – nothing too difficult (otherwise I wouldn’t understand it). I propose to apply the IPCC/GISS central estimates of forcing, feedbacks, and warming to what has actually been observed or inferred in the period since 1750.

    What interests me is the “rooted in well-understood physical processes” – because this is where the bs begins – the misdirection is in the constant claiming, as is done with “consensus”, that the gobbledegook they then spout is “well-known physics” – when it is nothing of the kind, and actually full of properties and processes not known in the physics of our real world.

    First of all – the “well-known” that carbon dioxide is well mixed and accumulates in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and so is not like the condensable water vapour is misdirection, because it isn’t physically possible, carbon dioxide is heavier than air. One and a half times heavier. Therefore, it will always displace air in the atmosphere to come down to the ground unless work is done on it, and so also will not readily rise up into the atmosphere. The AGW Science Fiction department has created a whole new fictional physics to explain this impossible claim, (I wrote something about it the other day here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/#comment-864575 from: [This teacher was first adamant that carbon dioxide could not separate out from the atmosphere in which it had spontaneously thoroughly mixed as per ideal gas law. ).

    Also, the ‘well-mixed’ has been debunked by the AIRS data – the team, believing the misdirection from the fiction meme producing department that carbon dioxide was “well-mixed”, were shocked when they found it wasn’t, when they found it lumpy instead.

    This too hides more, they haven’t released the upper and lower troposphere figures for CO2 – years of data missing from our knowledge base, and what they have given from the mid troposphere is in difficult to access and analyse form, the couple of pictures they’ve released chosen to hide the fact that they found lumpy.

    So, even though a ‘non-condensing gas’, carbon dioxide isn’t a supermolecule which can defy gravity, but, is it ‘non-condensing’? In itself yes, it doesn’t go through the phase changes like water vapour to condense out into a fluid liquid from a fluid gas, but, all pure clean rainwater is carbonic acid. Water vapour and liquid and carbon dioxide have irresistible attraction for each other, water vapour will mop up any and all carbon dioxide around and as it condenses out into rain the two will come down to Earth together as rain. Also in dew, fog and so on is carbonic acid. For all practical purposes, carbon dioxide is a condensing gas, because fully part of the Water Cycle.

    Which brings me to the final point – the greatest misdirection here to promote AGW is to exclude the Water Cycle, as above:

    higley7 says:
    January 16, 2012 at 7:56 am
    What is missing from this very nice discussion is the huge heat engine in the form of the convection of warm, humid air to altitude where it cools, condenses, and cool rain falls back to Earth. This is responsible for about 85% of energy transfer to altitude, away from the surface, and is the missing heat Trenberth agonizes over.

    The standard figures for the cooling role of water in the water cycle is:

    Earth with atmosphere as is: 15°C
    Earth without any atmosphere: -18°C
    Earth with atmosphere but without water: 67°C

    The Water Cycle cools the Earth 52°C ! – to bring the temperature down to 15°C

    No wonder they do everything they can to distract and misdirect from this!

    What they do is use the final figure of 15°C, which is only achieved by the water cycle first cooling the earth, and take the difference between that and the -18%deg;C of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, and then say the 33°C rise is due to greenhouse gases blaming it all on carbon dioxide!

    So, carbon dioxide with its great affinity for water is fully part of the cooling cycle in the atmosphere. Think deserts here without the water cycle.

    The misdirection is simple, but now ubiquitously promoted and so believed as “well-known”, they just keep repeating that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere and it would be colder without them, but, they exclude water vapour in its own right and water vapour is the main greenhouse gas and water vapour cools the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere is real world physics. And carbon dioxide is fully paid up member of the cooling team.

    So, there’s more background than first apparent about this claim:

    Dr. Lacis’ argument, then, is that the radiative forcing from water vapor should be treated as a feedback, because if all greenhouse gases were removed from the atmosphere most of the water vapor now in the atmosphere would condense or precipitate out within ten years, and within 50 years global temperatures would be some 21 K colder than the present.”

    Total junk science because devoid of any reference to real world physics, real properties and real processes.

    And even worse than the Gore documentary you had a hand in debunking – this junk physics is being taught in schools, a whole generation of children who have a very confused idea about the world around them. :)

  202. Myrrh says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 16, 2012 at 10:19 am
    Myrrh says:
    January 16, 2012 at 1:59 am

    Whoa, back up. There is generally no special thermal radiation that occurs at phase changes. Why would a phase change cause thermal radiation(not the release of latent heat that simply warms the surrounding air, but thermal radiation)?

    ? The release of latent heat can be by conduction, convection or radiation – if by radiation then the latent heat IS thermal radiation, thermal infrared. Thermal infrared is heat energy, thermal energy, on the move.

    Myrrh, you are claiming that;

    1. The imaginary planet described in the head post has nitrogen that for some reason will liquify in the atmosphere. I don’t know why it would do that, but that is your claim.

    2. You also claim that the latent heat from the liquification of nitrogen is emitted as thermal radiation.

    Bro’, you desperately need some citations for those claims. I think both of those things are fantasies. Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat. Since what we’re talking about is nitrogen liquifying at something like -170C or wherever nitrogen liquifies, the amount of radiation will be microscopic.

    ===========

    Quote my words Willis!!

    You may well be talking about it with someone, but I’ve said nothing about nitrogen liquefying or claimed that it’s in the head post’s atmosphere…, at any temperature.

    My post was referring to your exact words as I quoted them. Nothing more.

    If it wasn’t becoming so irritating, it would be still be funny, but you are making the same mistake which has been promoted as a fisicsfiction meme by those pushing AGW – you think heat is something different from thermal infrared radiation.. That’s why so many here can’t tell the difference between heat and light.


    So, to quote your words again exactly, I’m now referring to what you said here: “Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat.”

    If that latent heat is released in a vacuum where it must be radiated out, you and your ilk think it isn’t heat!

    What is it then?? A few squiggly lines?

    If you would all just stick with basic physics about this you wouldn’t get so confused.

    Latent heat is called latent heat because it is the heat released or absorbed because of a phase change. It’s the latent that’s descriptive here, about which process, form, state the heat is in. Heat is heat, how it’s transmitted doesn’t change it. Conduction, convection and radiation are likewise such descriptions. The heat is the same.

    So, to quote your words again exactly, I’m referring to what you said: “Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat.”

    Is gobbledegook.

    Here, for anyone interested to learn something about HEAT:

    http://thermalenergy.org/

    Thermal Energy Explained

    What is thermal energy ?
    Thermal Energy: A specialized term that refers to the part of the internal energy of a system which is the total present kinetic energy resulting from the random movements of atoms and molecules.
    The ultimate source of thermal energy available to mankind is the sun, the huge thermo-nuclear furnace that supplies the earth with the heat and light that are essential to life. The nuclear fusion in the sun increases the sun’s thermal energy. Once the thermal energy leaves the sun (in the form of radiation) it is called heat. Heat is thermal energy in transfer. Thermal energy is part of the overall internal energy of a system.
    At a more basic level, thermal energy comes form the movement of atoms and molecules in matter. It is a form of kinetic energy produced from the random movements of those molecules. Thermal energy of a system can be increased or decreased.
    When you put your hand over a hot stove you can feel the heat. You are feeling thermal energy in transfer. The atoms and molecules in the metal of the burner are moving very rapidly because the electrical energy from the wall outlet has increased the thermal energy in the burner. We all know what happens when we rub our hands together. Our mechanical energy increases the thermal energy content of the atoms in our hands and skin. We then feel the consequence of this – heat. [Link]Laws of Thermodynamics

    Italics as used in the piece.

    Further:

    http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php

    Heat Transfer

    Thermal energy and heat are often confused. Rightly so because they are physically the same thing. Heat is always the thermal energy of some system. Using the word heat helps physicists to make a distinction relative to the system they are talking about.

    Heat: Term used to describe the transfer of thermal energy between two thermodynamic systems at different temperatures.

    Take a small piece of ice out of your fridge and hold it in your hand. The thermal energy content of your hand is higher then the thermal energy content of the ice cube.

    The atoms that comprise your hand are moving more rapidly then the atoms that make up the ice cube. Therefore, there will be a transfer of thermal energy from your hand to the ice cube. While this thermal energy is in transfer, it is called heat. This will cause the atoms in the ice cube to speed up while the atoms in your hand slow down.

    The increase in speed of the ice cube atoms changes the state of water from solid to liquid. This transfer of thermal energy will continue until an equilibrium is reached between your hand, the ice (now water), and the air in the room.

    When you put your hand over a hot stove you can feel the heat. You are feeling thermal energy in transfer. The atoms and molecules in the metal of the burner are moving very rapidly because the electrical energy from the wall outlet has increased the thermal energy in the burner. We all know what happens when we rub our hands together. Our mechanical energy increases the thermal energy content of the atoms in our hands and skin. We then feel the consequence of this – heat

    So, heat is the same thing in all of this! It is the kinetic energy of some system in the random movement of atoms and molecules. Heat is the thermal energy as in the Sun, it is the thermal energy leaving the Sun in the form of radiation. These are not different kinds of heat, they are different descriptions about heat, just like latent is a description about heat. The HEAT they are describing is the SAME THING.

    “Thermal energy and heat are often confused. Rightly so because they are physically the same thing

    Thermal means of heat, that’s a description of the energy. The energy described is that which is heat.

    Kinetic means of or due to motion, it’s a description of the energy Kinetic energy is thermal energy is heat in the total of the random movement of atoms and molecules.

    “Young just called it energy. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) added the adjective “kinetic” to separate it from “potential energy”, which was named by William Rankine (1820-1872) in 1853.

    http://physics.info/energy-kinetic/

    Same page this is what it says about latent heat:

    “Heat absorbed or released as the result of a phase change is called latent heat. There is no temperature change during a phase change, thus there is no change in the kinetic energy of the particles in the material. The energy released comes from the potential energy stored in the bonds between the particles.”

    So, Heat in the form of radiation is thermal infrared. Thermal infrared is the thermal energy of the Sun which has left the Sun and is on the move, it is the HEAT of the Sun on the move.

    Visible Light is not Heat. Visible, Light, is not the thermal energy of the Sun, is not the total kinetic energy of the Sun, it is not heat of the Sun on the move. If it was, it would be called Heat.

    The visible light is being created by the heat in the Sun, it’s an effect of heat.

    Thermal infrared is the thermal energy of the Sun which has left the Sun and is on the move. The thermal energy of the Sun is Heat. Therefore, thermal infrared which is thermal radiation is HEAT ON THE MOVE.

    Heat, thermal infrared, thermal energy in the form of radiation, is what you can feel radiating out to you from a stove even if the stove isn’t hot enough to produce visible light; the heat you feel radiating out to you from a hot pavement; the heat you feel from the Sun. It is invisible.

    You cannot feel visible Light.

    Apologies for the italic gone haywire in my last post, it’s something to do with using blockquotes, but I haven’t yet fathomed it. I was going to offer to repost it to make it easier to read.

  203. Who are the brain police says:

    Alright then, seems as though I don’t know how to post within the constraints of the moderators parameters.
    Eight years of climate study in N WI, 35 years experience in geodesy, remote sensing.
    Twenty-two degrees below zero this morning.
    DRZ

    [REPLY: Still cryptic. Just how does this relate to SOPA/PIPA, the topic of the thread? The "dr" part is, I gather, an honorific, and the actual initials are "J.P."? If you have an answer to the question, then say it. -REP]

  204. Who are the brain police says:

    Aquaint, which stands for “Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence” may be the intrusive tool to determine “contrary thinking”. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/nsa-police.html
    also the AQUAINT site www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/aquaint/
    Remember that Samantha Power is the spouse of Sunstein. I wouldn’t like to disagree with her.

  205. clipe says:

    superscript

  206. clipe says:

    what’sthis

  207. clipe says:

    check

  208. clipe says:

    too many parameters relative to the number of observations.

  209. frankdejongnl says:

    Test test

  210. frankdejongnl says:

    A second test

  211. MDR says:

    above generated by $\latex \Int_{-1}^1 x^2 dx$ without the \ on latex

  212. Ockham says:

    Testing blockquotes

    In their Dantesque circle, AGW hysterics time-and-again face Groundhog Day as if all that matters were their self-perpetuating asininities. Alas for the Green Gang, nature takes her course… as Earth’s long summer fades, as our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch subsides to Ice Time via Grand Solar Minimum, greenies’ Luddite psychopathology will have a lot to answer for. -Anonymous WUWT commenter

    end test

  213. Ockham says:

    Test end test

  214. past within a deck changes the odds in the rest of the deck. That’s how it is possible to turn the odds in your favor. Sampling without replacement. Of course, it take a lot of knowledge aforehand about the domain and behavior of the deck.

    What if, mind you: If, If, If If…., you had some 8 parameter Bessel function that had uncanny ability to predict ocean temperatures given (Lat, Long, Z, t). You use a random sample of 1/2 of your argo measurements to calibrate the 8 parameters. This then specifies the 4-D temperature profile of the ocean in the domain of the data. You then take the other 1/2 of the data points, calcullate the residual (measured – prediction) and you show that the model accounts for 99.99% of the measurement variance. If, If, If. If you had such a model, then your ability to evaluate the mean temp could be quite high.

    Mind you, this is all theoretical. You must first show that magical predictive function, do uncertainty analysis on each of the parameters. But my point is that the measurement of the mean is not simply a function of the standard deviation of the measurements: It really should be the standard deviation of the error (measurement-prediction), which can be a small number.

    Even with the theoretical model in mind, Willis’s 100 x more measurements for an other significant digit still stands. The theoretical model is critically based upon George E Smith’s observation that the sampling methodolgy passes the Nyquest test or the theoretical model is a bunch of hooey from the start.

  215. Brilliant contribution, George E. Smith; 1/27, 8:16 pm

    Bringing in Nyquest into the argument is going for the jugular! You have Nyquest issues simultaneously in time, lat, long and depth. “The emperor has no clothes.”

    Going back to Willis’s illustration of Accuracy vs Precision, I just want to point out that when looking at the data, all you have are the shot groupings — you don’t have the bullseye or the scope picture to go on. So the “More Precise” grouping will naturally be seen as “More Accurate” without very careful, very often, recalibration. A broken clock is a very precise time measurement device, worthless for accuracy, but very precise.

    Finally, I want to tie the issue of independence of the measurments and covariance I brought up concerning Valdez and with Willis card counting at the top. I believe that the Argo buoys are probably positivly corelated in nearby measurements and that far away they are likely independent. That however, is a hypothesis on my part.

    Willis’ card counting example is one of negative correlation: What has happened in the past within a deck changes the odds in the rest of the deck. That’s how it is possible to turn the odds in your favor. Sampling without replacement. Of course, it take a lot of knowledge aforehand about the domain and behavior of the deck.

    What if, mind you: If, If, If If…., you had some 8 parameter Bessel function that had uncanny ability to predict ocean temperatures given (Lat, Long, Z, t). You use a random sample of 1/2 of your argo measurements to calibrate the 8 parameters. This then specifies the 4-D temperature profile of the ocean in the domain of the data. You then take the other 1/2 of the data points, calcullate the residual (measured – prediction) and you show that the model accounts for 99.99% of the measurement variance. If, If, If. If you had such a model, then your ability to evaluate the mean temp could be quite high.

    Mind you, this is all theoretical. You must first show that magical predictive function, do uncertainty analysis on each of the parameters. But my point is that the measurement of the mean is not simply a function of the standard deviation of the measurements: It really should be the standard deviation of the error (measurement-prediction), which can be a small number.

    Even with the theoretical model in mind, Willis’s 100 x more measurements for an other significant digit still stands. The theoretical model is critically based upon George E Smith’s observation that the sampling methodolgy passes the Nyquest test or the theoretical model is a bunch of hooey from the start.

  216. Guinganbresil says:

    Test of image

    end test

  217. John Whitman says:

    Testing html tags.

    Summary: Un-alarming

  218. Myrrh says:

    Robert Brown says:
    January 30, 2012 at 7:07 am

    myrrh said some things about You haven’t even read his explanation for writing it the way he did as your diabribe against him showed.

    That’s because I don’t care why he wrote it badly. You show me one single original contribution in

    this article! It isn’t even a valid review article. I reiterate: He says “I’m going to prove that

    there is a stable thermal lapse in thermodynamic equilibrium”.

    Where does he say that?

    He quotes a textbook that derives

    the DALR in a section on climate dynamics, atmospheric flow. He states “this is thermal

    equilibrium”. He concludes “I’ve proven that the DALR is thermal equilibrium and will heat an

    absolutely static, stable, isolated atmosphere with a fixed total energy content differentially

    after all thermalizing processes are finished.”

    Where does he say that?

    No he hasn’t, no it doesn’t. He hasn’t proven anything at all — he just begs the question by

    restating his assertion as his conclusion with a “QED”, and the conclusion he asserts violates the

    second law of thermodynamics.

    I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re arguing about. I can’t find any of that in his paper.

    Myrrh said: “I think you should begin again, Take II, and stick to his thought experiment and not your strawman silver wire deflection.”

    By all means, let’s. That way we won’t be able to trivially prove that his assertion that the

    system is in equilibrium is false.

    He set out what he meant by equilibrium here:

    “2.2 A proof
    A. Axioms
    The laws in physics are valid. A model planet atmosphere according to paragraph 2.1
    is postulated. Equilibrium atmospheric conditions have been reached meaning that the
    average total energy of atmospheric molecules is constant. Effects of enthalpy and
    entropy are assumed to be negligible.”

    The silver wire is hardly a “straw man”, of course. It is just a proxy for heat conduction,

    something that he seems to have left out of consideration when he listed the agents responsible

    for establishing thermal equilibrium in his “thought experiment”. Unless you can show that no

    irreversible transport of heat energy is possible — even in fluctuations — within this gas, which

    is prima facie absurd, it is trivial to show that moving heat from the bottom to the top increases

    the entropy of the closed system. I’ve done so several times above.

    You introduced “thermal equilibrium”.

    You went off on a completely different tangent, and began arguing against something he hadn’t said and which has nothing to do with the poser he sets.

    If you want to publish a paper for lay people to help them understand something, it helps to

    explain how the result doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics when obviously it does.

    Even for lay people. I mean, all it takes is a single course in introductory physics to see how

    his assertion fails. You don’t need a physics Ph.D, you just need to stop burying your head firmly

    in the sand because you don’t want to face the fact that a thermodynamically stable, DALR undriven

    by a thermal differential maintained by other means is bullshit magic.

    rgb

    Well, I’m a lay peeps, and I think I understand what he’s saying (I’ve explained myself in a post above), you however, don’t make any sense at all.

    You’re quoting stuff I can’t find, you’ve ditched his scenario and put your own in its place, changing energetic equilibrium for thermal equilbrium you then spend your whole time arguing that he can’t get an adiabatic lapse rate from a thermal equilibrium which he never said he could, and, you bring in conduction, the wire, when he is explicitly talking about gases. What the has solids to do in this? This is about our fluid gaseous atmosphere.

    Now, if you can sort that out, where you’re getting his quotes, maybe I’ve missed them, why you’ve totally ignored his scenario, why you’re arguing against a straw man of thermal equilibrium of your own invention and brought in the totally irrelvant conduction through solids and all the arguments about the 2nd law with respect to that, maybe you could write something worth reading about his paper. But at the moment, all you’re arguing with everyone about is your own imagined paper.

    Guest post by Robert G. Brown
    Duke University Physics Department

    The Problem
    In 2003 a paper was published in Energy & Environment by Hans Jelbring

    You still haven’t fixed the link.

    that asserted that a gravitationally bound, adiabatically isolated shell of ideal gas would exhibit a thermodynamically stable adiabatic lapse rate. No plausible explanation was offered for this state being thermodynamically stable

    Yes he did. Newton’s gravity. And note, thermodynamically stable adiabatic lapse rate, not your ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’.

    Jelbring said: “The more atmospheric mass per unit planetary area, the greater
    GE has to develop. Otherwise Newton’s basic gravity model has to be dismissed.”

    – indeed, the explanation involved a moving air parcel:

    An adiabatically moving air parcel has no energy loss or gain to the surroundings. For example, when an air parcel ascends the temperature has to decrease because of internal energy exchange due to the work against the gravity field.

    This is standard meteorological background. For example:

    “Thus, rising air is said to cool or warm adiabatically when its temperature changes are due entirely to pressure changes. In reality, some degree of energy exchange will always take place, but these are generally small on short timescales.”

    http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html

    This argument was not unique to Jelbring (in spite of his assertion otherwise):

    The theoretically deducible influence of gravity on GE has rarely been acknowledged by climate change scientists for unknown reasons.

    He’s not saying it’s unique to him, he’s saying that this “has rarely been acknowledge by climate change scientists for unknown reasons”

    Real scientists, such as meteorologists, know this.

    The adiabatic lapse rate was and is a standard feature in nearly every textbook on physical climatology.

    That the adiabatic lapse rate is standard in “climatology” textbooks is irrelevant, he’s referring to real science and the point he’s making is that it is pressure related and that there is no energy exchange in the process.

    It is equally well known there that it is a dynamical consequence of the atmosphere being an open system.

    Yeah, well, what do you mean by “well known”? Like, ‘well known that carbon dioxide is well-mixed and accumulates in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years’? Like, ‘well known that shortwave visible heats oceans’?

    But anyway, as I said in my post it’s good enough to approximate a closed system, and I’ve only just found the page I quoted from, so my imagined cap to make it a closed system wasn’t quite accurately imagined, there is a cap on the dynamic system, it’s the inversion layer below the stratosphere.

    There’s no reason to deviate from his scenario.

    Those same textbooks carefully demonstrate that there is no lapse rate in an ideal gas in a gravitational field in thermal equilibrium because, as is well known, thermal equilibrium is an isothermal state; nothing as simple as gravity can function like a “Maxwell’s Demon” to cause the spontaneous stable equilibrium separation of gas molecules into hotter and colder reservoirs.

    The scenario which you have deviated from, and then continued to argue, and argue, and argue that he got wrong, when you imagined it yourself. That is straw man.

    I suggest, again, that you go back to the beginning and make some effort to understand what he is saying first, before you think you’re refuting him. At the moment, you’re simply arguing against yourself.

    The link to his paper should be: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

    For some reason it’s put this discussion url in front which messes it up.

  219. Myrrh says:

    Robert Brown says:
    January 30, 2012 at 7:07 am

    myrrh said some things about You haven’t even read his explanation for writing it the way he

    did as your diabribe against him showed.

    That’s because I don’t care why he wrote it badly.You show me one single original contribution in

    this article! It isn’t even a valid review article. I reiterate: He says “I’m going to prove that

    there is a stable thermal lapse in thermodynamic equilibrium”.

    Where does he say that?

    He quotes a textbook that derives the DALR in a section on climate dynamics, atmospheric flow.

    He states “this is thermal equilibrium”. He concludes “I’ve proven that the DALR is thermal

    equilibrium and will heat an absolutely static, stable, isolated atmosphere with a fixed total

    energy content differentially after all thermalizing processes are finished.”

    Where does he say that?

    No he hasn’t, no it doesn’t. He hasn’t proven anything at all — he just begs the question by

    restating his assertion as his conclusion with a “QED”, and the conclusion he asserts violates the

    second law of thermodynamics.

    I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re arguing about. I can’t find any of that in his paper.

    Myrrh said: “I think you should begin again, Take II, and stick to his thought experiment and not

    your strawman silver wire deflection.”

    By all means, let’s. That way we won’t be able to trivially prove that his assertion that the

    system is in equilibrium is false.

    He set out what he meant by equilibrium here:

    “2.2 A proof
    A. Axioms
    The laws in physics are valid. A model planet atmosphere according to paragraph 2.1
    is postulated. Equilibrium atmospheric conditions have been reached meaning that the
    average total energy of atmospheric molecules is constant. Effects of enthalpy and
    entropy are assumed to be negligible.”

    The silver wire is hardly a “straw man”, of course. It is just a proxy for heat conduction,

    something that he seems to have left out of consideration when he listed the agents responsible

    for establishing thermal equilibrium in his “thought experiment”. Unless you can show that no

    irreversible transport of heat energy is possible — even in fluctuations — within this gas, which

    is prima facie absurd, it is trivial to show that moving heat from the bottom to the top increases

    the entropy of the closed system. I’ve done so several times above.

    You introduced “thermal equilibrium”.

    You went off on a completely different tangent, and began arguing against something he hadn’t said

    and which has nothing to do with the poser he sets.

    If you want to publish a paper for lay people to help them understand something, it helps to

    explain how the result doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics when obviously it does.

    Even for lay people. I mean, all it takes is a single course in introductory physics to see how

    his assertion fails. You don’t need a physics Ph.D, you just need to stop burying your head firmly

    in the sand because you don’t want to face the fact that a thermodynamically stable, DALR undriven

    by a thermal differential maintained by other means is bullshit magic.

    rgb

    Well, I’m a lay peeps, and I think I understand what he’s saying (I’ve explained myself in a post

    above), you however, don’t make any sense at all.

    You’re quoting stuff I can’t find, you’ve ditched his scenario and put your own in its place,

    changing energetic equilibrium for thermal equilbrium you then spend your whole time arguing that

    he can’t get an adiabatic lapse rate from a thermal equilibrium which he never said he could, and,

    you bring in conduction, the wire, when he is explicitly talking about gases. What the has solids

    to do in this? This is about our fluid gaseous atmosphere.

    Now, if you can sort that out, where you’re getting his quotes, maybe I’ve missed them, why you’ve

    totally ignored his scenario, why you’re arguing against a straw man of thermal equilibrium of

    your own invention and brought in the totally irrelvant conduction through solids and all the

    arguments about the 2nd law with respect to that, maybe you could write something worth reading

    about his paper. But at the moment, all you’re arguing with everyone about is your own imagined

    paper.

    Guest post by Robert G. Brown
    Duke University Physics Department

    The Problem
    In 2003 a paper was published in Energy & Environment by Hans Jelbring

    You still haven’t fixed the link.

    that asserted that a gravitationally bound, adiabatically isolated shell of ideal gas would

    exhibit a thermodynamically stable adiabatic lapse rate. No plausible explanation was offered for

    this state being thermodynamically stable

    Yes he did. Newton’s gravity. And note, thermodynamically stable adiabatic lapse rate, not your

    ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’.

    Jelbring said: “The more atmospheric mass per unit planetary area, the greater
    GE has to develop. Otherwise Newton’s basic gravity model has to be dismissed.”

    – indeed, the explanation involved a moving air parcel:

    An adiabatically moving air parcel has no energy loss or gain to the surroundings. For example,

    when an air parcel ascends the temperature has to decrease because of internal energy exchange due

    to the work against the gravity field.

    This is standard meteorological background. For example:

    “Thus, rising air is said to cool or warm adiabatically when its temperature changes are due

    entirely to pressure changes. In reality, some degree of energy exchange will always take place,

    but these are generally small on short timescales.”

    http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html

    This argument was not unique to Jelbring (in spite of his assertion otherwise):

    The theoretically deducible influence of gravity on GE has rarely been acknowledged by climate

    change scientists for unknown reasons.

    He’s not saying it’s unique to him, he’s saying that this “has rarely been acknowledge by climate

    change scientists for unknown reasons”

    Real scientists, such as meteorologists, know this. “Climate change scientists” use a lot of

    fictional fisics, besides such obvious boo boos like missing out the Water Cycle.

    The adiabatic lapse rate was and is a standard feature in nearly every textbook on physical

    climatology.

    That the adiabatic lapse rate is standard in “climatology” textbooks is irrelevant, he’s referring

    to real science and the point he’s making is that it is pressure related in the atmosphere and

    that there is no energy exchange in the process.

    It is equally well known there that it is a dynamical consequence of the atmosphere being an

    open system.

    Yeah, well, what do you mean by “well known”? Like, ‘well known that carbon dioxide is well-mixed

    and accumulates in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years’? Like, ‘well known that

    shortwave visible heats oceans’?

    But anyway, as I said in my post it’s good enough to approximate a closed system, and I’ve only

    just found the page I quoted from, so my imagined cap to make it a closed system wasn’t quite

    accurately imagined, there is a cap on the dynamic system, it’s the inversion layer below the

    stratosphere.

    There’s no reason to deviate from his scenario.

    Those same textbooks carefully demonstrate that there is no lapse rate in an ideal gas in a

    gravitational field in thermal equilibrium because, as is well known, thermal equilibrium is an

    isothermal state; nothing as simple as gravity can function like a “Maxwell’s Demon” to cause the

    spontaneous stable equilibrium separation of gas molecules into hotter and colder reservoirs.

    The scenario which you have deviated from, and then continued to argue, and argue, and argue that

    he got wrong, when you imagined it yourself. That is straw man.

    I suggest, again, that you go back to the beginning and make some effort to understand what he is

    saying first, before you think to refute him. At the moment, you’re simply arguing against

    yourself.

    The link to his paper should be:

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

    For some reason it’s put this discussion url in front which messes it up.

  220. clipe says:

    Flight Number: AC 400
    Airline: AIR CANADA
    Date: 01.02.2012
    Departure: 07:00 from YYZ ( Terminal 1 )
    Arrival: 08:13 at YUL ( )
    Aircraft type: 321
    Duration of travel: 01:13 hours

  221. clipe says:

    Jan 29 00:01 19:01 19:01 Schedules RecordCreated

    Jan 30 12:05 07:05 07:05 Airline Gate Adjustment

    * Departure Gate Changed To 122

    Jan 30 12:06 07:06 07:06 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Scheduled Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
    * Estimated Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
    * Scheduled Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM

    Jan 31 08:31 03:31 03:31 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:57 AM To 01/31/12 07:56 AM

    Jan 31 12:16 07:16 07:16 Airline STATUS-Active

    * Actual Gate Departure Changed To 01/31/12 06:59 AM
    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:09 AM
    * Status Changed From Scheduled To Active

    Jan 31 12:30 07:30 07:30 Airline Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:09 AM To 01/31/12 08:38 AM

    Jan 31 12:42 07:42 07:42 FAA STATUS-Flight Plan Filed

    * Estimated Runway Departure Changed From 01/31/12 07:10 AM To 01/31/12 07:37 AM
    * Status Changed From Active To Scheduled

    Jan 31 12:43 07:43 07:43 Airline STATUS-Active

    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:38 AM To 01/31/12 08:30 AM
    * Status Changed From Scheduled To Active

    Jan 31 12:44 07:44 07:44 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Actual Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:38 AM

    Jan 31 13:00 08:00 08:00 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:56 AM To 01/31/12 08:23 AM

    Jan 31 13:15 08:15 08:15 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:23 AM To 01/31/12 08:20 AM

    Jan 31 13:26 08:26 08:26 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:20 AM To 01/31/12 08:21 AM

    Jan 31 13:30 08:30 08:30 FAA STATUS-Wheels Down

    * Actual Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:22 AM
    * Status Changed From Active To Landed

    Jan 31 13:47 08:47 08:47 Airline Time Adjustment

    * Actual Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:37 AM

    Jan 29 00:01 19:01 19:01 Schedules RecordCreated

    Jan 30 12:05 07:05 07:05 Airline Gate Adjustment

    * Departure Gate Changed To 122

    Jan 30 12:06 07:06 07:06 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Scheduled Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
    * Estimated Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
    * Scheduled Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM

    Jan 31 08:31 03:31 03:31 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:57 AM To 01/31/12 07:56 AM

    Jan 31 12:16 07:16 07:16 Airline STATUS-Active

    * Actual Gate Departure Changed To 01/31/12 06:59 AM
    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:09 AM
    * Status Changed From Scheduled To Active

    Jan 31 12:30 07:30 07:30 Airline Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:09 AM To 01/31/12 08:38 AM

    Jan 31 12:42 07:42 07:42 FAA STATUS-Flight Plan Filed

    * Estimated Runway Departure Changed From 01/31/12 07:10 AM To 01/31/12 07:37 AM
    * Status Changed From Active To Scheduled

    Jan 31 12:43 07:43 07:43 Airline STATUS-Active

    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:38 AM To 01/31/12 08:30 AM
    * Status Changed From Scheduled To Active

    Jan 31 12:44 07:44 07:44 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Actual Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:38 AM

    Jan 31 13:00 08:00 08:00 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:56 AM To 01/31/12 08:23 AM

    Jan 31 13:15 08:15 08:15 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:23 AM To 01/31/12 08:20 AM

    Jan 31 13:26 08:26 08:26 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:20 AM To 01/31/12 08:21 AM

    Jan 31 13:30 08:30 08:30 FAA STATUS-Wheels Down

    * Actual Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:22 AM
    * Status Changed From Active To Landed

    Jan 31 13:47 08:47 08:47 Airline Time Adjustment

    * Actual Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:37 AM

  222. clipe says:

    test

    Jan 30 12:05 07:05 07:05 Airline Gate Adjustment

    * Departure Gate Changed To 122

    Jan 30 12:06 07:06 07:06 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Scheduled Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
    * Estimated Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
    * Scheduled Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM

    Jan 31 08:31 03:31 03:31 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:57 AM To 01/31/12 07:56 AM

    Jan 31 12:16 07:16 07:16 Airline STATUS-Active

    * Actual Gate Departure Changed To 01/31/12 06:59 AM
    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:09 AM
    * Status Changed From Scheduled To Active

    Jan 31 12:30 07:30 07:30 Airline Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:09 AM To 01/31/12 08:38 AM

    Jan 31 12:42 07:42 07:42 FAA STATUS-Flight Plan Filed

    * Estimated Runway Departure Changed From 01/31/12 07:10 AM To 01/31/12 07:37 AM
    * Status Changed From Active To Scheduled

    Jan 31 12:43 07:43 07:43 Airline STATUS-Active

    * Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:38 AM To 01/31/12 08:30 AM
    * Status Changed From Scheduled To Active

    Jan 31 12:44 07:44 07:44 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Actual Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:38 AM

    Jan 31 13:00 08:00 08:00 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:56 AM To 01/31/12 08:23 AM

    Jan 31 13:15 08:15 08:15 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:23 AM To 01/31/12 08:20 AM

    Jan 31 13:26 08:26 08:26 FAA Time Adjustment

    * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:20 AM To 01/31/12 08:21 AM

    Jan 31 13:30 08:30 08:30 FAA STATUS-Wheels Down

    * Actual Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:22 AM
    * Status Changed From Active To Landed

    Jan 31 13:47 08:47 08:47 Airline Time Adjustment

    * Actual Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:37 AM

  223. clipe says:

    Last two posts from flightstats

  224. Caroline says:

    The following illustration is projections of the impact on global temperature in millionths of a ºC of each country by either:
    (A) closing down their entire economy (100% reduction)
    or
    (B) cutting their carbon dioxide “emissions” by 20%, which would, in any case, destroy any western-style developed economy.

    For example: if Britain had a 20% reduction = 348/1,000,000ºC (348 millionths of a ºC).

    COUNTRY A. (100% REDUCTION) B. (20% REDUCTION)

    Brazil 2787 / 1 000 000 ºC 557 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Britain 1738 / 1 000 000 ºC 348 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Canada 1665 / 1 000 000 ºC 333 / 1 000 000 ºC
    China 18662 / 1 000 000 ºC 3732 / 1 000 000 ºC
    France 1172 / 1 000 000 ºC 234 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Germany 2462 / 1 000 000 ºC 492 / 1 000 000 ºC
    India 4618 / 1 000 000 ºC 924 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Iran 1428 / 1 000 000 ºC 286 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Italy 1450 / 1 000 000 ºC 290 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Japan 3955 / 1 000 000 ºC 791 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Mexico 1334 / 1 000 000 ºC 267 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Russia 4784 / 1 000 000 ºC 957 / 1 000 000 ºC
    South Africa 1268 / 1 000 000 ºC 254 / 1 000 000 ºC
    South Korea 1453 / 1 000 000 ºC 291 / 1 000 000 ºC
    USA 17558 / 1 000 000 ºC 3518 / 1 000 000 ºC

    Rest of the World put together 20437 / 1 000 000 ºC 4087 / 1 000 000 ºC

    TOTALS 86771 / 1 000 000 ºC 17371 / 1 000 000 ºC

    Notice that in order to achieve the “No more than 2ºC warming” so frequently declared by politicians and world leaders as their target for CO2 reductions, the total projected temperature drop in the table above would have to be 2,000,000 (2 million) / 1 000 000 ºC. But the total for 100% CO2 reduction is only 86,771 / 1 000 000 ºC and for a 20% the reduction is a mere 17,371 / 1 000 000 ºC.

    SUMMARY
    The Total Greenhouse Effect on Climate 33.0ºC
    Non-water Greenhouse gases ~5% 1.65ºC
    CO2 ~75% of Total Greenhouse gases 1.24ºC
    Man-made CO2 – under 7%* of the Total CO2 0.087ºC
    * This is being generous. The latest figures show Man-made CO2 at about 3.2%, which would reduce the total man-made Greenhouse Effect to 0.0405ºC.
    Britain’s Total CO2 “Effect” on the Climate 0.00174ºC
    – or as expressed as Millionths of a ºC 1740 / 1 000 000 ºC
    …or to put it another way: If Britain produced no carbon dioxide at all (0 %), the Earth’s climate would cool by 0.00174ºC.

    Even if the defunct Kyoto Protocol was implemented in full world-wide, it would only delay by a matter of days an inevitable temperature rise by 2100 (assuming that a temperature rise was occuring at all).

    Water vapour, the most significant Greenhouse gas of all, comes from natural sources and is responsible for about 95% of the “Greenhouse Effect”. This is common knowledge amongst real scientists, but is ignored by all those with financial interests, certain governmental groups and so-called news reporters. Conceding that it is “a little misleading” to leave water vapour out of their pronounciations, they defend their practice by saying that it’s “customary” to do so.

    Much of the scientific establishment and all the green “activists” have forgotten their elementary school biology about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide to be a “dangerous pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. Have they gone collectively insane? The other thing they “forget” to mention is that carbon dioxide has a half-life of just five years, which means that nearly all the CO2 produced over five years ago has disappeared into the sea and Earth’s biosphere. Those talking about how the West’s developed economies have been wrecking the atmosphere “for centuries” are either ignorant of that scientific fact or just plain lying.

    The plain truth is that whatever the climate is doing it is neither caused by or can be influenced by any so-called “remedial” action by humans. “Fighting climate change” is probably the stupidest phrase in the English language, and is only used by those with a financial or other interest in perpetuating the biggest fraud in history.

  225. Caroline says:

    The following illustration is projections of the impact on global temperature in millionths of a ºC of each country by either:
    (A) closing down their entire economy (100% reduction)
    or
    (B) cutting their carbon dioxide “emissions” by 20%, which would, in any case, destroy any western-style developed economy.

    For example: if Britain had a 20% reduction = 348/1,000,000ºC (348 millionths of a ºC).

    COUNTRY A. (100% REDUCTION) B. (20% REDUCTION)

    Brazil 2787 / 1 000 000 ºC 557 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Britain 1738 / 1 000 000 ºC 348 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Canada 1665 / 1 000 000 ºC 333 / 1 000 000 ºC
    China 18662 / 1 000 000 ºC 3732 / 1 000 000 ºC
    France 1172 / 1 000 000 ºC 234 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Germany 2462 / 1 000 000 ºC 492 / 1 000 000 ºC
    India 4618 / 1 000 000 ºC 924 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Iran 1428 / 1 000 000 ºC 286 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Italy 1450 / 1 000 000 ºC 290 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Japan 3955 / 1 000 000 ºC 791 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Mexico 1334 / 1 000 000 ºC 267 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Russia 4784 / 1 000 000 ºC 957 / 1 000 000 ºC
    South Africa 1268 / 1 000 000 ºC 254 / 1 000 000 ºC
    South Korea 1453 / 1 000 000 ºC 291 / 1 000 000 ºC
    USA 17558 / 1 000 000 ºC 3518 / 1 000 000 ºC

    Rest of the World put together 20437 / 1 000 000 ºC 4087 / 1 000 000 ºC

    TOTALS 86771 / 1 000 000 ºC 17371 / 1 000 000 ºC

    Notice that in order to achieve the “No more than 2ºC warming” so frequently declared by politicians and world leaders as their target for CO2 reductions, the total projected temperature drop in the table above would have to be 2,000,000 (2 million) / 1 000 000 ºC. But the total for 100% CO2 reduction is only 86,771 / 1 000 000 ºC and for a 20% the reduction is a mere 17,371 / 1 000 000 ºC.

    SUMMARY
    The Total Greenhouse Effect on Climate 33.0ºC
    Non-water Greenhouse gases ~5% 1.65ºC
    CO2 ~75% of Total Greenhouse gases 1.24ºC
    Man-made CO2 – under 7%* of the Total CO2 0.087ºC
    * This is being generous. The latest figures show Man-made CO2 at about 3.2%, which would reduce the total man-made Greenhouse Effect to 0.0405ºC.
    Britain’s Total CO2 “Effect” on the Climate 0.00174ºC
    – or as expressed as Millionths of a ºC 1740 / 1 000 000 ºC
    …or to put it another way: If Britain produced no carbon dioxide at all (0 %), the Earth’s climate would cool by 0.00174ºC.

    Even if the defunct Kyoto Protocol was implemented in full world-wide, it would only delay by a matter of days an inevitable temperature rise by 2100 (assuming that a temperature rise was occuring at all).

    Water vapour, the most significant Greenhouse gas of all, comes from natural sources and is responsible for about 95% of the “Greenhouse Effect”. This is common knowledge amongst real scientists, but is ignored by all those with financial interests, certain governmental groups and so-called news reporters. Conceding that it is “a little misleading” to leave water vapour out of their pronounciations, they defend their practice by saying that it’s “customary” to do so.

    Much of the scientific establishment and all the green “activists” have forgotten their elementary school biology about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide to be a “dangerous pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. Have they gone collectively insane? The other thing they “forget” to mention is that carbon dioxide has a half-life of just five years, which means that nearly all the CO2 produced over five years ago has disappeared into the sea and Earth’s biosphere. Those talking about how the West’s developed economies have been wrecking the atmosphere “for centuries” are either ignorant of that scientific fact or just plain lying.

    The plain truth is that whatever the climate is doing it is neither caused by or can be influenced by any so-called “remedial” action by humans. “Fighting climate change” is probably the stupidest phrase in the English language, and is only used by those with a financial or other interest in perpetuating the biggest fr@ud in history.

  226. Caroline says:

    COUNTRY A. (100% REDUCTION) B. (20% REDUCTION)

    Brazil 2787 / 1 000 000 ºC 557 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Britain 1738 / 1 000 000 ºC 348 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Canada 1665 / 1 000 000 ºC 333 / 1 000 000 ºC
    China 18662 / 1 000 000 ºC 3732 / 1 000 000 ºC
    France 1172 / 1 000 000 ºC 234 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Germany 2462 / 1 000 000 ºC 492 / 1 000 000 ºC
    India 4618 / 1 000 000 ºC 924 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Iran 1428 / 1 000 000 ºC 286 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Italy 1450 / 1 000 000 ºC 290 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Japan 3955 / 1 000 000 ºC 791 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Mexico 1334 / 1 000 000 ºC 267 / 1 000 000 ºC
    Russia 4784 / 1 000 000 ºC 957 / 1 000 000 ºC
    South Africa 1268 / 1 000 000 ºC 254 / 1 000 000 ºC
    South Korea 1453 / 1 000 000 ºC 291 / 1 000 000 ºC
    USA 17558 / 1 000 000 ºC 3518 / 1 000 000 ºC

    Rest of the World put together
    20437 / 1 000 000 ºC 4087 / 1 000 000 ºC

    TOTALS 86771 / 1 000 000 ºC 17371 / 1 000 000 ºC

  227. Myrrh says:

    Robert Brown says:
    February 3, 2012 at 8:51 pm
    “Air has low thermal conductivity, and the bodies of air involved are very large, so transfer of heat by conduction is negligibly small.”

    Yes, but that is just a matter of time scales of relaxation. You really are almost there now. Jelbring explicitly — and I do mean explicitly — states that he is supposedly waiting for relaxation to occur on all available time scales. He is supposedly describing thermal equilibrium in a static column of gas that has been sitting around long enough for even radiation to equilibrate, and for non-GHGs that is a very, very long time, much longer than the time required for thermal conductivity to equilibrate temperatures.

    We really are reading him from two completely different positions, I see this as just the ‘chuck everything out and get to the basics’, so if it takes that aeons of time, so be it, but at the end of that, etc.

    In other words, there is no “negligibly small” when discussing thermal equilibrium timescales. Relaxation to thermal equilibrium occurs on many timescales. Who determines which ones are “negligible”? What are these timescales?

    “Take two identical volumes (parcels) of air, taken from somewhere at a midlevel in the
    troposphere, with each parcel containing an identical number of gas molecules and the
    same amount of heat energy to start
    . Mentally place one parcel higher in the troposphere and
    one closer to the surface of the Earth, without allowing any molecules or heat energy to enter or
    leave each parcel of air. The parcel of air that you placed in the lower atmosphere is going to
    compress and warm because it finds itself in a place with higher pressure. The parcel of air that
    higher in the atmosphere is going to expand and cool because it finds itself under lower pressure.
    This kind of process, one which takes place without heat energy entering or leaving the parcel, is
    called an adiabatic process.” http://education.sdsc.edu/teachertech/downloads/climate_answ.pdf

    That’s the time scale, it doesn’t matter. That is always going to be the underlying skeletal structure onto which all else is built.

    To put it another way, if one constructed a system with an isothermal air column in force balance — something one certainly can do, just by taking an insulated tower of air and mixing it well and letting it stop moving — what will make it depart from isothermal and relax towards a DALR? There are no air parcels moving up or down, so the entire argument concerning adiabatic lapse and isoentropic mixing is moot. There is nothing but diffusion and conduction, and they if anything maintain the air in an isothermal state. I’ve already argued that taking any gas and without doing any work causing it to separate into hotter and colder gas is a horrible, egregious violation of the second law, yet the entire gas column is by construction hydrodynamically stable, with a density strictly decreasing with height and without the slightest thing to cause bulk convection or other movements of air where “work” can be done.

    That’s all irrelevant, it’s already the adiabatic lapse rate as a creation of gravity in that pressure does the work, more or less work as it’s greater or weaker.

    You’re thinking of gravity as ‘doing work’ in an odd way, istm, and it could be because you’re not relating gravity to its own processes. For example as you say here:

    “and that gravity does no work on things that are not moving. There are no adiabatic expansions or contractions — why would they occur?”

    Gravity ‘works’ on mass not on movement, it’s the relationship of mass of objects meeting in gravity which creates movement, two gases of different mass in the same parcel of space will separate out as gravity has a greater pull on the one with more mass.

    What you are saying is just a restatement of what I’ve been saying all along. Jelbring is incorrect, but if you neglect thermal conductivity and dynamical relaxation processes other than slow convection, an atmosphere with a DALR can be hydrodynamically stable and can exhibit a lapse rate (once one is established) for a long time. But that moves us into another discussion — one of atmospheric dynamics, not atmospheric statics, the explicit milieu of Jelbring’s paper.

    No, I’m saying it’s why Jelbring says conduction is negligible, because it is, dynamically or statically, it can be discounted, air is a very poor conductor of heat.

    It’s just to get back to the difference in pressure which is a ‘function’ of gravity, the higher the pressure the more the molecules are heated, the more they’re heated the lighter and less dense they become and so rise as the denser above them bully their way down through them, well, the actual term is displace, like carbon dioxide being heavier displaces the lighter nitrogen and oxygen to sink to the ground. The action of gravity.

    There I think that it is pretty obvious what actually establishes a lapse rate — differential heating of the air column at the bottom, followed by a rough equilibration due to approximately adiabatic convection. The air column is always moving, always heating or cooling, so the milieu of Jelbring’s paper and his conclusions are not only incorrect, they are irrelevant. He didn’t discover, invent, derive, meaningfully discuss, measure, draw pictures of, or even present an heuristic argument for the DALR in his paper. All he did is assert that it is a feature of completely isolated, static atmospheres so that just having a gas in a gravity well equals a DALR in the gas.

    You continue to prove my point.

    I’m trying very hard not to… :)

    “Why is air at elevation cooler as the pressure becomes less? The temperature of air is cooler at elevation in response to the vertical pressure changes that happen to occur because of the Earth’s gravity.” (same link as last)

    He went well out of his way to isolate the gas and leave it alone so it would reach “energy equilibrium”, whatever that is supposed to mean, but there you have it. If you want to assert that energy equilibrium isn’t thermal equilibrium, well then, you and he can make it anything you like but it won’t be the state the system spontaneously evolves to. If you want to say that no, he meant to describe a non-equilibrium gas, then reread his paper.

    Thermal equilibrium doesn’t mean the same temperature, if for example, a gas in getting hotter expands and rises becoming less dense and under less pressure it can move faster, it’s using thermal energy to move, there’s no energy lost, it’s just become something else, or, as temperature relates to kinetic energy not thermal energy then heat capacity comes into play, as water can absorb a huge amount of thermal energy before there’s any rise in temperature, or whatever, but if you’re equating all ‘energy’ to ‘heat’ as thermal energy then that’s a different idea altogether, not all energy is heat. I think he means here energy equilibrium as in different processes can be happening within the volume of gas, I think you keep misreading him. As you misread him here:

    “An adiabatically moving air parcel has no energy loss or gain to the surroundings. For example, when an air parcel ascends the temperature has to decrease because of internal energy exchange due to the work against the gravity field.”

    When you read that he was somehow ‘proving’ that it was adiabatic, but he’s only saying that adiabatic is the default and a parcel of air rising in it will change its energy states, the equilibrium is in the total energy of the processes.

    Others have explained what that means is happening to the gaseous atmosphere as it goes from high to low pressure, and it has to be understood by first taking into account the particular properties of gases, and, these in the actual processes of gravity.

    I’m sorry, but this is really all Jelbring is saying, that when we get back to the basic mechanism we get the adiabatic lapse rate, yer basic gravity.

    “But, they have actually excluded the Water Cycle. Without water the earth would be 67°C, that is 52°C hotter – think deserts to get some idea of what the earth would be like without the main greenhouse gas water vapour in the Water Cycle.”

    You also continue to throw red herrings into the soup. Jelbring’s paper explicitly excludes the Water Cycle (or adiabatic moving air parcels). It is a pure ideal gas. So why do you keep bringing them up?

    It’s a running continuation on the theme of you misreading him in thinking he was claiming an insight unique to him, when you said it was also in text books, but what he meant was “climate” scientists don’t acknowledge this. As you show here. “Climate” scientists are a breed apart. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear as a theme in my replies. I’ve just been giving different examples of how “climate” scientists have a completely different fisics of the basics. The absence of the water cycle in the KT97 and ilk energy budgets the most obvious. But “climate science” has done this across the range of basics in changing, tweaking, eliminating and so on to the point where it describes a non-existant world, and as you show here, doesn’t know it, so thinks it’s something ‘new’ or ‘wrong’ as it’s trying read it from a different fisics, trying to make it fit into a different fisics.
    I’m glad you asked.

    Heating the atmosphere at the bottom more than the top seems important as well, and you know what? It isn’t that surprising that something heated at the bottom and cooled at the top exhibits a thermal gradient from the bottom to the top.

    No, it exhibits a temperature gradient.

    The interesting question is, what cools it at the top?

    Same thing that heats it at the bottom..

    ..pressure, i.e. gravity, weaker at the top, stronger at the bottom.

    Cooling requires the actual physical removal of heat.

    Requires a change in temperature. Removing thermal energy can do that. By changing it to a different energy, etc.

    Could it be — gasp — radiation? Could we — possibly — measure it? Can we — I know it is a crazy, crazy, idea — determine the temperature of the source of the radiation, and from the spectrum the probable source of the radiation, the particular species of molecules that are emitting it? Could those molecules be — I hate to even say it out loud — CO_2?

    Sigh.

    We know the temperature of the Sun. What “climate” scientists have done is change the spectrum. The claim is that no thermal energy direct from the Sun heats the Earth, the real thermal energy that is, thermal infrared radiation which is heat on the move. Instead “climate” scientists have given its properties, being heat, to shortwave, claiming visible light heats the oceans and land, even though water is a transparent medium to it.. And then, ignoring that the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared so does reach us, say that carbon dioxide a trace gas, and already fully part and parcel of the cooling cycling of the Earth in the Water Cycle, is responsible for raising the temperature of the Earth from -18°C to 15°C, without ever giving any rational explanation as to how it actually does this, and, that doubling it will cause catastrophic runaway global warming, doubling a trace gas it still remains a trace gas.

    You do have such an amazing molecule in your fictional world, defying gravity it can stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years accumulating though it’s one and a half times heavier than air, and, with no heat capacity to spit at, it can trap heat, or, heck you can’t even get your stories to say the same thing consistently, it becomes this great thermal blanket stopping heat escaping… just how much of that blanket is holes?

    Anyway, thanks for your post on Clifford, I enjoyed reading it.

  228. Myrrh says:

    Robert Brown says:
    February 4, 2012 at 9:49 pm
    Myrrh says:
    February 4, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Adiabatic Cooling…

    Nice picture, and nice article. Note well that the figure clearly labels the wall of the balloon as being a thermal insulator — that’s the adiabatic part, actually. Suppose that it wasn’t really a perfect thermal insulator? Hmmm, would the gas precisely follow the adiabatic PV curve if heat could flow into the contents of the balloon from the gas surrounding it?

    I’ve already noted it well…, glad you noticed. But, don’t worry about what would happen etc. just yet, get yourself firmly acquainted with the basic concept first. The Adiabatic Process is fully understood in the real world. Adiabatic means without heat entering or leaving the system. Familiarise yourself with that picture.

    Note well that the article clearly states that the air takes on an adiabatic lapse as it is being uplifted. It even offers pretty much the only two mechanisms for uplift, and truthfully that can be reduced to one. The first is differential heating leading to convection, the second is the deflection of lateral air movements as they go up or down a mountainside. The second, of course, requires pressure differences to generate the wind and pressure differences are only created by differential heating. No differential heating (on Earth or anyplace else) — no ALR.

    I’ve already noted it well.. You need to note well that “takes on an adiabatic lapse rate as it is being uplifted” is because it is within the adiabatic process, that’s what it will do. Do try to refrain from interpolating your own version into this – this is one of the basic constants of our physical world, like heat always flowing from hotter to colder, because that is the way it is. Gases with extra heat input might well rise faster, and chinook winds speed up the heating of its air as it comes into greater pressure from the heights, but we are talking about the basic process here, to which all these relate, created by gravity. What this is saying is that these will act according to the basic structure. The adiabatic lapse rate exists without any extra heat coming into or leaving the system, it’s created by gravity. From that we can understand our winds, our weather systems. Parcels of air moving through the atmosphere are called wind, convection, I’m glad you have heard of convection, it is one of the three modes of transport for heat, as thermal energy on the move.

    Air uplifted will cool as the air pressure decreases, and will heat up as it descends as air pressure increases, it takes on the adiabatic lapse rate up and down, remember the picture. Moved higher it will expand as it becomes less dense and will cool, moved lower into higher pressure it will become more dense and will heat up. That is the Adiabatic Lapse Rate, it is a constant. That is the process created by gravity. That’s what Adiabatic Lapse rate means, relating to a specific process and not to anything else some might want to imagine.

    From: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
    [bold as on original page]

    ["The process of convection causes air warmer than its environment to rise, and cold air to sink. Convection thus transports heat upward, making it warmer aloft than it would be in the absence of convection. However, in the atmosphere, in contrast to what happens in a kettle filled with water and set on the stove to boil, convection does not lead to a temperature profile that is uniform with height. This is because the rising air cools adiabatically. Dry convection will tend to create an adiabatic temperature profile in which the temperature falls at a rate of 9.8 °C per kilometer." ]

    Next step:

    ["But what the ideal gas law can not tell us is what will happen to the temperature. To find that out we need to consider the first law of thermodynamics - a physical law that extends the principle of conservation of energy to include the concepts of heat and work.

    "In thermodynamics the simplest form of energy conservation is the balance between internal energy (the kinetic energy of the body's internal molecular motion - directly proportional to its temperature), and the amount of heat added to the body minus the work done by the body on its surroundings.

    "As our air parcel expands in response to the lowering of the outside pressure, the force of its internal pressure is moving the walls of the container outwards. When a force is moving an object over a given distance it does work. Thus the expanding air parcel does work on its surroundings. This work must come at the expense of internal energy (remember, heat is neither added nor taken away from the parcel in this experiment). Thus the molecular motion within the parcel will slow down, and the parcel's temperature will drop.

    "The expanding parcel will experience not only lowering of its pressure and density, but also of its temperature. All three state variables: pressure, density, and temperature will remain in balance as described by the ideal gas law. The process described above is called adiabatic expansion, implying the change in parcel density without the exchange of heat with its surroundings, and its consequential cooling. The opposite will occur when the parcel is compressed. Adiabatic compression leads to warming".
    ..
    IV. Atmosphere under gravity - hydrostatic balance.
    Hydrostatic balance

    "In the vertical direction, gravity is by far the most important external force acting on the atmosphere. It is the reason for the existence of this crucial envelop of gases around the Earth."
    ..
    "We can now combine the thermodynamic laws with the effect of gravity on pressure. Using the equation of state, the first law of thermodynamics, and the hydrostatic equation we can find that the rate of adiabatic temperature change in an ascending air parcel (also termed the adiabatic lapse rate and denoted Γd) is constant: .."]

    Last bold mine..

    An interesting question is then — suppose one starts with an air column (Jelbring conditions, dry ideal gas, no mountains, wind, or sources of heat) but select as an initial condition hydrostatic equilibrium with a thermal profile somewhere in between the classic DALR and isothermal. Which way (to which profile) will this air column go? etc.

    You’re still not getting hydrostatic balance, it doesn’t mean nothing is happening and you have to bring in another idea into the system to work out what will happen…, the adiabatic lapse rate will happen.

    [Hydrostatic balance

    "In the vertical direction, gravity is by far the most important external force acting on the atmosphere. It is the reason for the existence of this crucial envelop of gases around the Earth.

    "The atmosphere does not collapse under the downward pull of gravity because of the energy embedded in the movement of the air molecules. This movement creates the force of pressure which counters the gravitational pull on the atmosphere. The balance between the force of pressure and gravity is the hydrostatic balance.

    To find the expression for the hydrostatic balance, we first note that atmospheric surface pressure is due to the weight of the entire atmospheric column above. As we ascend, there is less of an atmosphere above us, and hence the pressure drops."]

    The adiabatic lapse rate is within the hydrostatic balance because of the properties of gases which create the pressure. And it’s temperature profile..

    ["To understand the equation of state, assume that you have a fixed mass of air enclosed in a container with rigid walls (hence with fixed volume). If we warmed the container, say by putting it over a flame, the temperature of the air (i.e., kinetic energy of the air molecules) will rise and the pressure (i.e., the force exerted by these molecules on the container walls) will increase. The density of the air will not change since we are not increasing the amount of gas in the container nor the volume of the container. The ideal gas equation states that the increase in pressure is directly proportional to the increase in temperature.

    "Lets replace the rigid wall of the container with flexible ones, that are allowed to stretch freely if the pressure inside rises above that on the outside. In that case, when we raise the temperature, the pressure inside will remain constant (and equal to the outside pressure), but the container's volume will increase. This means that the density will decrease (because the mass inside does not change). The ideal gas law states that the density decrease will be inversely proportional to the increase in temperature." ]

    Now you know what the adiabatic lapse rate is, why don’t you try answering the posers Jelbring set?

  229. Two Sides of the Albedo; The Problem with 240 W/m^2.
    by Stephen Rasey

    240 Watts/m^2 is an important number in climate science[4]. People use it to calculate the black body temperature of the Earth ( Tbb=255 K = -15 C) and compare it to some measured average temperature, (Tm = 285K = +15C) which converts back to a blackbody heat of 390 W/m^2. The difference between 240 W/m^2 and 390 W/m^2 is explained as the Green House Effect.

    There is a big problem here. Along the pathway from the sun to the surface of the Earth in this algebra, we have violated the laws of Thermodynamics several times.

    Let me be clear at the beginning. I believe in a Greenhouse Effect (GHE). I am questioning the physical model and the arithmetic used to calculate the size of the GHE. In the end, I hope to convince you that a more useful estimate for solar heating of the Earth’s surface is 341 W/m^2, equivalent to about 279 K, not the 240 W/m^2 and 255 deg K generally assumed.

    How people get to 240 W/m^2 is that take a solar constant (So = 1364 +/- 3 W/m^2) as the energy received full on at the distance of the earth. They then divide by 4 to spread that energy evenly over a sphere representing the earth’s top of atmosphere, yielding 341 W/m2.[4] THIS is the ORIGINAL SIN! Dividing by 4 leads to a dead planet; it is an isothermal planet without net heat flow, anywhere. Next, this 341 W/m^2 is passed through an albedo mechanism, reflecting 30% and transmitting a net 240 W/m^2 to the ground. At this point, it is equivalent to a Blackbody at 255K and thus the second sin against thermodynamics is committed.

    In the past month on WUWT, there have been several highly enlightening posts by Brown, and Eschenbach [3] that have made clear that when any non-greenhouse gas[1] is in a gravity field of a planet, and the surface of the planet is isothermal, then the atmosphere must be isothermal at the temperature of the ground. The purpose of those posts was to refute the theory that a gravitational field can cause the lower part of the atmosphere to be warmer than the upper part. Until the temperature lapse rate goes to zero, work can be extracted from the temperature difference. Therefore, the atmosphere at equilibrium must be isothermal if the heating of the ground is uniform. There is no net heat flow. There is no convection, no net conduction, no latent heat exchange, no heat of vaporization or of fusion because there is no temperature differences to drive the heat flow. It’s a dead planet.

    For proof, I ask you to imagine 4 concentric spherical shells, from inner to outer, call them G, B, T, S. G is the Earth Ground, a solid sphere with a gravitational field.. B is the Albedo layer. T is the Top of the Atmosphere with an ideal gas between T and G. S is the surface of solar irradiance. These shells are all spherically symmetrical with a common center. Why do we have S as a sphere? Because we divided solar insolation by 4 !! The only way to uniformly heat G is to have a spherically uniform radiator. When we do that, using the inverse square laws, we see that in order to irradiate G with X W/m2, surface S must also radiate at X W/m^2. S and G must be at equal Black Body temperatures for any X! We have not specified radius of S or G or T, except by “concentric” Rg .LT. Rb .LT. Rt .LT. Rs. Therefore, the temperature at T must also be equal to S. The Atmosphere between G and T is isothermal with everything at the same temperature. The Atmosphere has a pressure gradient, but is without a temperature lapse rate.

    Wait a minute! What about the Albedo layer B? Don’t we have to multiply the Energy flow from S through T to G by the albedo fraction “A”, call it 30%. So, to plug in some numbers, S is radiating by 341 W/m2 at 279 K. T is at the same temperature. 341 W/m2 encounters the Albedo B, and only (1-A) or 240 W/m2 get through to the Ground. Therefore Ground must be bathed in 240 W/m2 that implies a black-body temperature of 255 K. Oops! Suddenly, we are confronted with a non-isothermal system, with the ground colder than the top of the atmosphere. Thermodynamic alarm bells should be going off in your heads.

    We can plug Dr. Brown’s silver wire into the atmosphere near T and the other end into the Ground G and extract work from the temperature difference, warming Ground G until it warms back to near temp of T. We then unplug the wire. Ground G is again only receiving 240 W/m2 again. But who here believes that Ground G will drop in temperature again back to 255 deg K? How can it get colder than its surroundings? Of course, it will not.

    At thermal equilibrium the Temp of G must be the same as T and S. Otherwise we could use the silver wire to extract work. The Albedo fraction (A) of Albedo B must make no difference in the temperature of G! Remember, this is a DEAD PLANET we are considering here. We made the Original Sin of dividing by 4 long ago.

    Something is missing. There is an albedo layer. It is blocking about 100 W/m2 of downward solar irradiance heat flow. But, the albedo has two sides. It also blocks 100 W/m2 of heat flow upwards. It is serving as an insulator, a device that reduces the transmission of heat in both directions, but cannot by itself change the ultimate temperature on its two sides. An albedo is not a Maxwell’s Demon.

    Don’t believe me? Try this on your next campout or hike. In the morning, fill your water bottle. Wrap it in a “space blanket” with an albedo at least 90%. So little of the sun’s heat will get to the bottle that the temperature of the water should plummet. By noon, you should have a welcome block of ice to cool you down. Read the directions of the space blanket carefully! If you put it on wrong side out, you’ll heat the water to boiling instead of freezing it. — No. Space Blankets don’t work that way. They have two equal sides. They cannot refrigerate their interiors; they can only retard the heat flow.

    Albedo’s have two sides, too. They reflect heat away. They reflect heat back to the ground. They insulate. They retard the heat flow, not change the temperature of the end state. They do this without GHG’s (2). But an Albedo, whatever it reflectivity, cannot change the temperature of the ground —- ON A DEAD PLANET.

    Put an Albedo on a rotating planet, illuminated by a near-point-source sun, possessing a night and a day, equator and poles, and make the albedo time varying by the minute and hour – it will make all the difference in the world! Solar insolation is anywhere from 1365 W/m2 to zero and all manner of heat capacity mechanisms come into play. But on that world, you don’t divide the solar irradiance by 4.

    Stephen Rasey

    Notes:
    (1) The same is true if the atmosphere contains GHGs for the same reasoning, but I don’t want to go there, yet.
    (2) But Albedo is from clouds and ice, and H2O is a powerful GHG! I’ll concede the point, but maintain we are talking about two separate properties of the same compound. Either way, a GHG driven albedo cannot act as a Maxwell’s Demon and keep the concentric spheres at different temperatures.
    (3) Other relevant WUWT posts:
    Brown, Jan 24, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
    Eschenback: Jan 19, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/perpetuum-mobile/
    Eschenback: Jan 13, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/a-matter-of-some-gravity/
    Brown, Jan 12, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/
    Rasey, Jan 21, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/perpetuum-mobile/#comment-872239

    [4] Just a small sample of references:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

    Earth’s Climate History, Antón Uriarte
    Image: Uriarte: Appendix 1 [Note Thermals and transpiration on an isothermal uniformly-insolated dead planet.]
    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/POPP/Lecture2.ppt [same dynamic weather systems on a 342 W/m2 isothermal dead planet.]
    Alley, Earth: The Operator’s Manual Page 352 #9
    Anderson, Decadal Climate variability: dynamics and predictability. Pg. 296-7. The Figure 2 on 297 with “Surface temperature without Greenhouse effect” – Venus = (minus 46 deg C)
    Wendisch-2012, “Theory of Atmospheric Radiative Transfer: A Comprehensive Introduction. Fig. 1.2 after Trenberth et al 2009. Same diagram as Uriarte above.

    [Note: Submitted on "test" page. Robt]

  230. Robt: the Stephen Rasey comments above was a test of format. I posted it slightly modified as a comment at in Perpetuum Mobile where I had earlier suggested a topic on the Two-Sided Albedo. It is that version that should be used for a new top level post.

  231. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    </rant>

  232. Tim, you bring up an excellent point that the spectrum of the energy received is significantly different than the energy emitted. Thank you.

    I thought about this, too in a comment from Jan 12. (quote shortened, full comment here)

    Why do we account for albedo only on the direct-from-sun energy, but everyone seems to ignore it on surface-to-sky path?
    Let’s set up a thought experiment where we normalize energy from the Sun as 1.
    That energy hits some atmospheric phenomena and 30% of it (call it A) is reflected as albedo into space. That leaves (1 – A)=B passing through the phenomena to strike the ground.
    All of that B that hits the ground must reradiate (over some time) or else the ground would continuously heat up. So we also have an upward amount of energy B [so far so good..]… that strikes the underside of those albedo phenomena…. And then what happens? Some of what I read has B just passing through into space as if the phenomena didn’t exist. Really? That’s quite a trick!
    Let us suppose, in a general formulation, that upward B radiation encounters the albedo phenomena and a fraction “a” is reflected back downward and (1-a) continues into space…. Now we have some extra energy (B*a) traveling back down on a second leg…. By superposition, downward b*a is hits the surface and must be returned upwards, only to meet with the partial reflector and we have a third downward leg b*a^2, to be repeated in an infinite series.
    By this “reverberation” within a partially trapped wave guide, we have energy striking the surface in the series: B + B*a + B*a^2 + …B*a^n. Rewrite as: B*(1 + a + a^2 + … a^n) which is an infinite series (if a<1) can be replaced with … B/(1-a).
    Finally, lets remember that B = 1-A. So that means the energy hitting the ground can be calculated as (1-A)/(1-a). What if the albedo phenomena reflects upward and downwards equally well? A=a. Then the ground energy is not (1-A) but it is 1.0000. The actual value of the albedo doesn’t matter if A=a.
    I did this in the general case because it is quite possible that because of changes in spectra of the direct energy and the ground reflected energy, “a” may very will not be equal to “A”. In the steady-state, “divide insolation by 4”, without day-night, world, I can be talked into “a” not equal to “A.
    But I am having an increasingly hard time accepting a=0, which seems to be the value for “a” used by default in many examples.

    It is the value of “a=0” people use to get to 255 K if they assume A=30%

    In the next comment, I showed that the total energy leaking through the albedo is the same (1-A) regardless of the value of “a”.

    You discuss in Point 2 the issue of spectrum conversion very well. It is a serious issue, but I don’t think you can just assume the 255 K value is correct. “a = A” might not be right, but “a = 0” is quite likely wrong. For one then, even at night, we can look up and see the bottom of the clouds from scattered light from the ground. There has to be some return.

    Four thoughts:
    1. There still exists the argument of the Isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field and Dr. Brown silver wire which we bridge across the albedo layer. If “a” does not equal “A”, then we have a perpetual temperature difference across the albedo with which the silver wire can extract work. That is a good reason to say “a” must equal “A”. But it is not proof. Well, maybe it is, and I just don’t grok why, yet.

    2. In your million star suns, the total energy may average 340 W/m^2, but spectrum will not be a 340 W/m^2 = 279 K blackbody, but a black body of much higher temperature and heat flux attenuated by distance (or spacing of the stars). So now we have 340 W/m^2 hitting the TOA, but not blackbody spectrum. How does that change arithmetic or Brown’s isothermal atmosphere? Does the albedo become a Maxwell’s Demon?

    3. The literature doesn’t seem to spend much time on this spectrum conversion. Yes, solar energy is converted to heat. But at the same time, they talk of “thermals”, “latent heat”, “convection” in a model that needs to have an isothermal ground. At equilibrium there must be no net energy flow. There is no day and night, everywhere it is the same grey illumination. No wind, no weather. A significant piece of the literature is inconsistent in this regard.

    4. The whole “divide by 4” average insolation is a bad idea to try to explain climate mechanisms. Might as well divide by zero. It is better to scrap it rather than fix it. Climate is a dynamic equilibrium, not a static one. Day and night cannot be averaged.Eppur si muove.

  233. Tim, you bring up an excellent point that the spectrum of the energy received is significantly different than the energy emitted. Thank you.

    I thought about this, too in a comment from Jan 12. (quote shortened, full comment here)

    Why do we account for albedo only on the direct-from-sun energy, but everyone seems to ignore it on surface-to-sky path?… Let’s set up a thought experiment where we normalize energy from the Sun as 1. That energy hits some atmospheric phenomena and 30% of it (call it A) is reflected as albedo into space. That leaves (1 – A)=B passing through the phenomena to strike the ground.

    All of that B that hits the ground must reradiate (over some time) or else the ground would continuously heat up. So we also have an upward amount of energy B [so far so good..]… that strikes the underside of those albedo phenomena…. And then what happens? Some of what I read has B just passing through into space as if the phenomena didn’t exist.

    Let us suppose, in a general formulation, that upward B radiation encounters the albedo phenomena and a fraction “a” is reflected back downward and (1-a) continues into space…. Now we have some extra energy (B*a) traveling back down on a second leg…. By superposition, downward b*a is hits the surface and must be returned upwards, only to meet with the partial reflector and we have a third downward leg b*a^2, to be repeated in an infinite series.

    By this “reverberation” within a partially trapped wave guide, we have energy striking the surface in the series: B + B*a + B*a^2 + …B*a^n. Rewrite as: B*(1 + a + a^2 + … a^n) which is an infinite series (if a<1) can be replaced with … B/(1-a).

    Finally, remember that B = 1-A. So that means the energy hitting the ground can be calculated as (1-A)/(1-a). What if the albedo phenomena reflects upward and downwards equally well? A=a. Then the ground energy is not (1-A) but it is 1.0000. The actual value of the albedo doesn’t matter if A=a.

    I did this in the general case because it is quite possible that because of changes in spectra of the direct energy and the ground reflected energy, “a” may very will not be equal to “A”. In the steady-state, “divide insolation by 4”, without day-night, world, I can be talked into “a” not equal to “A.

    But I am having an increasingly hard time accepting a=0, which seems to be the value for “a” used by default in many examples.

    It is the value of “a=0” people use to get to 255 K if they assume A=30%

    In the next comment, I showed that the total energy leaking through the albedo is the same (1-A) regardless of the value of “a”.

    You discuss in Point 2 the issue of spectrum conversion very well. It is a serious issue, but I don’t think you can just assume the 255 K value is correct.

    Clouds can and will reflect away “sunlight” and absorb “earthlight” (lowering the effective blackbody temperature of the earth from 279K to 255K). GHGs can and will absorb “earthlight” better than “sunlight”, which has the effect of warming the surface (apparently from ~ 255K to ~ 288 K based on actual observations).

    On the one hand, you argue that an Albedo of clouds lowers the blackbody temperature of the Earth, but then GHG’s ride to the rescue to raise its temperature. Wouldn’t make more sense to net out the change? “a = A” might not be right, but “a = 0” is quite likely wrong. For one thing, even at night, we can look up and see the bottom of the clouds from scattered light from the ground. There has to be some return.

    Four thoughts:
    1. There still exists the argument of the Isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field and Dr. Brown silver wire which we bridge across the albedo layer. If “a” does not equal “A”, then we have a perpetual temperature difference across the albedo with which the silver wire can extract work. That is a good reason to say “a” must equal “A”. But it is not proof. Well, maybe it is, and I just don’t grok why, yet.

    2. In your million star suns, the total energy may average 340 W/m^2, but spectrum will not be a 340 W/m^2 = 279 K blackbody, but a black body of much higher temperature and heat flux attenuated by distance (or spacing of the stars). So now we have 340 W/m^2 hitting the TOA, but not blackbody spectrum. How does that change arithmetic or Brown’s isothermal atmosphere? Does the albedo become a Maxwell’s Demon?

    3. The literature doesn’t seem to spend much time on this spectrum conversion. Yes, solar energy is converted to heat. But at the same time, they talk of “thermals”, “latent heat”, “convection” in a model that needs to have an isothermal ground. At equilibrium there must be no net energy flow. There is no day and night, everywhere it is the same grey illumination. No wind, no weather. A significant piece of the literature is inconsistent in this regard.

    4. The whole “divide by 4” average insolation is a bad idea to try to explain climate mechanisms. Might as well divide by zero. It is better to scrap it rather than fix it. Climate is a dynamic equilibrium, not a static one. Day and night cannot be averaged. Eppur si muove.

  234. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    P_{\text{CAGW}}

  235. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    The ABC’s form on brainwashing kids and others with man-made warming propaganda goes way back.

  236. bntch says:

    test

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/nasa-giss-a-division-of-vandelay-industries/

    [Moderator's Note: 1. It is not advisable to comment with your e-mail address. 2. I trust I am not going to be sorry for approving this post. -REP]

  237. bntch says:

    The 6 million dollar budget would be busted big time with some of the suggestions above. I suggest a more subtle use. Buy out Tom’s Restaurant

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/nasa-giss-a-division-of-vandelay-industries/

    and replace it with a coal fired pizza parlor. The centerpiece should be a Hansen/Schmidt wall of shame with a flood level gauge with the following website links and printouts prominently displayed:
    http://www.john-daly.com/ (aka Still Waiting for Greenhouse)
    and of course Anthony’s epic post:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

    [Moderator's Suggestion: Don't use your e-mail address as a screen name unless you really want hate mail. -REP]

  238. Trick says:

    Italics work?

    Latex?

    \int_{n1}^{n2}

    Step 1: Mass = \int_{z1}^{z2} ρ dz

  239. JonasM says:

    Definitely a quick edit. I saw the unedited page this morning. Now the code reads:


    Task Force on Scientific Ethics
    <!--2010–2012 term-->
    <!--Chair
    Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California-->

  240. Test of an embedded video message for Dr. Gleick

  241. Second attempt to embed a video.

  242. A. Scott says:

    test

  243. John Whitman says:

    Mods.

    Just a test of html tags : )

    “””Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that “the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.” Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.””” {bold emphasis mine-JW}

  244. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    another check of html tags.

    Wall Street op-ed by 16 scientists: Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming :

    “””Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that “the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.” Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.””” {the over use of bold emphasis mine-JW}

    “””One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment. All of us are members of major academies and scientific societies, but we urge Journal readers not to depend on pompous academy pronouncements—on what we say—but to follow the motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain, one of the oldest learned societies in the world: nullius in verba—take nobody’s word for it. As we said in our op-ed, everyone should look at certain stubborn facts that don’t fit the theory espoused in the Trenberth letter, [ . . . ] “”” {the over use of bold emphasis mine – JW}

  245. John Whitman says:

    mods,

    another link check.

    Theory #n (wher ‘n’ is a very very large number) => He played this music video one too many times with a 24 hr period.

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=it+the+end+of+the+world+as+we+know+it&view=detail&mid=4024A801CF2AF38A34A84024A801CF2AF38A34A8&first=0&FORM=LKVR

  246. John Whitman says:

    oops that wasn’t quite right . . . . trying again

  247. Typhoon says:

    Test image

    [img]http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/51/jackieguerridohotpics1.jpg[/img]

  248. Gras Albert says:

    In a debate with some consensus supporters on Feb 23 I posted this except from the 2003 USA V POIRIER & DEVEGTER, D.C. Docket No. 97-00508-CR-2-1-MHS

    Defendants also contend that even apart from the question of the adequacy of the allegations about confidentiality, the indictment was insufficient because the specified documents did not constitute property and therefore could not support a § 1343 wire fraud conviction. In McNally v. United States, the Supreme Court held that wire and mail fraud statutes protect only property rights, and that the words “to defraud,” as used in the statutes, “usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, deceit, chicane or overreaching.”

    With its McNally decision the Court overturned a line of cases that permitted wire fraud convictions based on deprivation of intangible rights like the right to honest services.

    Shortly after McNally, the Supreme Court elaborated on the scope of § 1343 in Carpenter v. United States. In that case the Court affirmed convictions stemming from the fraudulent misappropriation of prepublication Wall Street Journal articles. In rejecting the contention that the defendants had not defrauded the Journal of money or property by disclosing and using the information in the stories before publication, the Court explained that “[t]he Journal, as one of the defendant’s employer, was defrauded of much more than its contractual right to his honest and faithful service.” Indeed, “the object of the scheme was to take the Journal’s confidential business information . . . and its intangible nature does not make it any less ‘property’ protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes.”

    Link, Gleick obtained Heartland confidential document property with the express intent of using and publishing that information to his advantage, the method he employed was identity fraud and the means of obtaining the information was email. Given that he admits the facts , I don’t see how there can be a clearer case of wire fraud under § 1343!

  249. Elmer says:

    This is just a test

  250. Elmer says:

    Test #2 on trying to embed an image

  251. Agile Aspect says:

    Testing to see it TeX works:

    $$F=dA=F_{\mu \nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}$$

  252. Agile Aspect says:

    Testing to see if TeX works with one dollar sign:

    $F=dA=F_{\mu \nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}$

  253. bob says:

    [SNIP: Anonymous cowards with phony e-mail addresses and using taxpayer-funded computer equipment at the Environmental Protection Agency in Alexandria, VA get no traction here. -REP]

  254. bob says:

    [SNIP: If you want to comment, use a real e-mail address. -REP]

  255. TrueNorthist says:

    A test of my html skills

    Abbreviation
    Long Form

    AFAIK
    As Far As I Know

    IMHO
    In My Humble Opinion

    OTOH
    On The Other Hand

    [Did you pass? Robt]

  256. Myrrh says:

    George E. Smith; says:
    March 3, 2012 at 9:42 am
    “”””” @Myrrh

    Maybe this can help you.

    “HEAT” is transported by RADIATION, in exactly the same manner, as the dearly departed are transported to their afterlife, by coffins.

    Myrrh: “I haven’t heard that one before..”

    Well let me try to explain. You like many others claim (and teach) that “Electromagnetic Radiation” is one method (of three) for transporting heat; and I have asserted that is NOT so.

    And I have reminded you that you are saying something utterly opposed to all traditional, well tested and well understood physics – and as I went through in an earlier post, it is for you to adjust your thinking to this, not for you to imagine it is something different and claim you know better, just because you say so. That is absurd arrogance since you provide no proof that you have superior insight or knowledge, and, it is clearly shown that you don’t have because you claim impossible things from it, and I’ll say it again, without giving any proof.

    So Myrrh, would you agree that a “grocery shopping cart” is another method of heat
    transport ?

    What’s that you say; “I haven’t heard that one before.”

    Well of course it is true. You watch the average grocery shopping cart being wheeled out to the parking lot to somebody’s Pius , or perhaps SUV, and you will find that it is simply full of “heat”, so clearly “heat” is being transported by the shopping cart; by way of the bulk transport of heat containing matter; which therefore must be a form of convection. Well of course that heat is in the form of bread, and steaks, and potatoes, and whisky; even beer. And it is all going home to help stop the purchaser from freezing to death. So s/he will eat/drink the grocery cart contents to activate chemical reactions which will “HEAT” the body of the consumer. We call it “FOOD” but it really is to a large extent simply a stored chemical energy, which was convected out to the SUV by way of the shopping cart.

    Now the shopping cart, and the bread loaf or bottle of Scotch are NOT “heat”; they are simply a conveyance mechanism by which “ENERGY” is being conveyed from one place to another; and it is only when that energy is released via chemical reactions, that “HEAT” is produced.

    Shopping carts and potatoes are NOT HEAT; they simply are vehicles for the transport of ENERGY which can be used somewhere else TO CREATE “HEAT”.>/i>

    As you say, they are not HEAT. Nor is the shopping cart a conveyor of heat. And you are confusing energies and matter. Moreover, you then have to bring in several more steps before you get heat. Chemical energy isn’t heat energy – for example in photosynthesis, the visible light’s energy is converted to chemical energy, to enable the plant to make sugar out of carbon dioxide and water, visible light is used to enable the process, the chemical energy produced, sugar, is not heat.

    Photosynthesis
    Photosynthesis converts light energy into the chemical energy of sugars and other organic compounds. This process consists of a series of chemical reactions that require carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) and store chemical energy in the form of sugar.
    Light energy from light drives the reactions. Oxygen (O2) is a byproduct of photosynthesis and is released into the atmosphere. The following equation summarizes photosynthesis:

    6 CO2 + 6 H2O → 6(CH2O) + 6 O2
    sugar

    Photosynthesis transfers electrons from water to energy-poor CO2 molecules, forming energy-rich sugar molecules. This electron transfer is an example of an oxidation-reduction process: the water is oxidized (loses electrons) and the CO2 is reduced (gains electrons). Photosynthesis uses light energy to drive the electrons from water to their more energetic states in the sugar products, thus converting solar energy into chemical energy.

    http://schools.look4.net.nz/science/biology/plant/photosynthesis

    It is not until that chemical energy is used for other processes, growth, that heat is produced. The plant then releases that heat by transpiration.

    And I do hate these bloody pages that are quite good until they spoil it by saying oxygen is a waste product of photosynthesis! Idiotic. By-product. Plants breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide as we do, it’s essential to them.

    Anyway, rant over, the shopping cart is not a conveyor of heat, it is the conveyor of matter which may contain some heat, but which it then plays no part in actually converting to chemical energy. It’s not a very good analogy, even if that is ‘what electromagnetic energy is’, because it’s still there at the end. It isn’t driving the process, it’s energy isn’t being used for chemical change, and, it isn’t driving the process to convert the chemical energy to heat as a by-product.

    Picky, yes.

    Likewise Myrrh, ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION is not “HEAT”, it is simply a vehicle for the conveyance of ENERGY, which CAN be converted to “HEAT” somewhere else.

    Which is why you don’t understand what heat is. I have never said that electromagnetic radiation is heat. But it it is your idea that it is ‘all the same energy’ “which can be converted to heat somewhere else” and is where you’re going wrong.

    As in photosynthesis, the visible light is converting to chemical energy. Chemical energy isn’t heat. It is chemical energy not heat energy, just as neither are mechanical energies.

    “it is simply a vehicle for the conveyance of ENERGY”

    This, I’ve worked out finally, is where you lose the plot. It IS ENERGY!

    It doesn’t convey energy, it is electromagnetic energy. That is what it is.

    The coffin of the dearly departed is simply a conveyance for the physical remains of the loved one. The passage to the hereafter happens in the minds of the remaining friends and family; that eternal life is NOT what’s in the coffin.

    Matter is eternal, it can neither be created nor destroyed. That is eternal life.

    But that’s still not what electromagnetic energy is, it is not ‘something’ carrying light or heat..

    So back to “heat” and “light” without the shouting. Neither one of these “things” is electro-magnetic radiation.

    This is where you’ve got it backwards. These “things”, “heat” and “light”, are exactly that, they are electromagnetic radiation.

    Furthermore neither one is transported directly by EM radiation.

    They are the EM radiation! One is light and one is heat.

    Both “heat” and “light”, and “warmth”, and “brightness”, and “cool” are human experienced psycho-physical aspects of the interraction of certain forms of energy with the human body.

    Psycho-babble gobbledegook.. Is this an example of post modern science?

    A slab of granite, or obsidian glass does not understand the concept of being warm, or frigid, or of seeing things; those are concepts of human experience.

    Oh what crap. They will heat up if heated. And, unless you can prove that they are not conscious of this …. :)

    So “light” by definition, IS visible, since it is simply the psycho-physical response of the human eye to certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation; it IS NOT the radiation itself which is merely the shopping cart (or coffin).

    Now listen carefully. Heat and Light are electromagnetic radiation. They are not being transported by this, this is what they are. They are electromagnetic radiation in the form of heat and light. Repeat that several times until it sinks in.

    Just as thermal energy and heat are often confused – because they are the same thing.

    Heat, or warmth is the same way; it is something WE feel, but inanimate objects do not. The granite or obsidian can and will respond to EM energy of sufficient intensity levels and wavelengths, but it doesn’t know anything about being cold or toasty.

    I’ve now tried to start a reply several times… I think I’ll leave this one.. :)

    Now I’m sure that Phil fully understands the difference, and we scientists do tend to throw around these terms flippantly; but we need to remeber that the same words have common everyday usage that lay persons don’t necessarily understand may have very precise scientific meanings so we MUST be careful in our use of words, to avoid confusing people who may not be schooled in the science behiond it.

    Which is why you end up talking absolute gibberish! I suggest you stop thinking of yourself as a ‘scientist’ in this, and go back to studying basics, such as heat capacity and temperature and maybe then you’ll be able to convey the real physics and not this garbled mess.

    And Myrrh, if you can get past the trap of believing that EM radiation is synonymous with “heat” and “light”, then you will have no problem in understanding that EM radiation in the visible “light” range of wavelengths, is just as capable (in fact moreso) as wavelengths in the near or far IR range of RAISING THE TEMPERATURE of physical materials, whether it be the oceans or human flesh or granite.

    Well, as I have repeated asked whenever such a claim is made – effin’ prove it! Prove that visible blue light as from the Sun heats water. Let me know when you have a cup of it hot enough for a coffee – I’ll come over.

    Until then, I prefer the real physical world around me to your Alice through the looking glass nonsense world.

    A photon at 10 microns wavelength in the LWIR range; which can be efficiently radiated by a bottle of water at 300 K Temperature has only 1/10th of the energy or a photon at 1 micron wavelength which is efficiently absorbed by water in our flesh. And a blue green photon at 500 nm near the solar spectrum peak (wavelength), has 20 times the energy of that 1o micron photon from the water bottle.

    That fraudulent “laboratory” experiment demonstrating a 100 Watt incandescent light bulb, at probably 3,000 kelvin color Temperature, is radiating 10,000 times the power density level of the bottle of water; which bottle is quite representative of the surface of the earth which is LWIR irradiating the atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and moreover it emits plenty of 4 micron and 2.17 micron IR which CO2 also efficiently absorbs,

    What fraudulent laboratory experiment? Incandescent lightbulbs generate 5% visible light to 95% heat, thermal infrared. That’s simply a fact about incandescent light bulbs.

    There’s a whole range of lightbulbs now, we know so much more about heat and light now this side of the mirror, there are lightbulbs which are much cooler, producing a huge amount of visible light and very little thermal infrared. The kind that are used in greenhouses to give visible light to the plants without heating them up… :)

    Still, thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking, I can understand now why you’re so confused.

    Easily solvable. Adjust your brain to thinking of heat and light as different forms of electromagnetic energy and you should slip back into the right gear.

    It’s these different forms, such as x-rays, gamma, visible, thermal infrared, that are distinctly different from each other. They have different properties one from the other, they are different sizes, have different effects on the matter they meet. They can share some of their characteristics with other forms, for example ionising and non-ionising UV, and can be categorised by their properties, Heat and Light are two such distinctly different forms. Near Infrared comes into the category of Light, for example. As before, because it is light and not heat, near infrared is used for photography – photo means light.

    It’s not the matter they meet that makes ‘energy’ into heat or light or x-rays, it is what they are before they meet matter.

    They are different FORMS of electromagnetism. They are distinct entities in their own right and act and react with matter in different ways, because they are different from each other.

    Heat from the Sun, is the thermal energy of Sun, is electomagnetism in the form of heat. It is this heat which acts on organic matter, heat heats it up. Light doesn’t do this. They work on completely different levels of process because of their different properties. Heat causes whole molecules to vibrate, light for the most part gets bounced off molecules in refraction and reflection and scattering, or used to drive chemical changes as in photosynthesis.

    “Radiation” is one method (of three) for transporting heat; and I have asserted that is NOT so.”

    It might help you re-organise your brain around this if you used the correct term. Radiation is one method of transferring heat. It is heat itself being transferred, not transported.

    Electromagnetism isn’t a shopping trolley carrying energy, it is energy itself. Which is why you end up with an abandoned shopping trolley – we don’t end up with abandoned electromagnetic waves delivering something you call ‘energy’..

    It is heat, thermal energy, transferred by radiation.

  257. Willis Eschenbach says:

    G = \frac{2 W - 2 L_{rad} - L_{abs} - L_{sen} -L_{lat}}{W_o - L_{abs}}

  258. Myrrh says:

    Bob_FJ says:
    March 4, 2012 at 9:53 pm
    Werner Brozek @ March 3, 11:01 am
    Werner, hoping that you have not given up in disgust here:
    As an engineer, I have sometimes wondered in the past if the quantum theory diffusion effect might break down under situations of low gravitational force and/or very thin gases. However, it seems to me more recently that under such fringe conditions that molecular free path lengths must increase, but whilst the interactions will reduce, the outcome of molecular mixing of different species would be unchanged.
    I’ve only glanced through Myrrh’s great wisdoms, but I think that he did not understand or ignored what I meant about “containment mechanisms” for atmospheric pressure. The prime one of course is gravitational, without which we would have no atmosphere. There are of course secondary thingies such as primarily advective weather systems resulting in regional variations in pressure containment. Ho hum!

    Ho hum, indeed. You review books without reading them?

    The Warner Brozek’s of this argument don’t have gravity. They don’t know what you’re talking about, I on the other hand, do.

    WARMISTS have instead EMPTY SPACE. That’s why they use their SB vacuum to calculate radiation, because they don’t have an atmosphere. I’ll repeat that.

    Warmists don’t have an atmosphere.

    That’s why they have NO CONVECTION, NO WATER CYCLE! They have NO WIND! They have instead of the heavy fluid gaseous ocean above us, EMPTY SPACE!

    THEY DON’T HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE GRAVITY! THEY DON’T HAVE GRAVITY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE REAL GASES, THEY LIVE IN AN IMAGINARY IDEAL GAS WORLD!

    YOU PEOPLE REALLY PISS ME OFF.

    Why don’t they have gravity? They don’t have gravity because they have a basic ideal gas world in a container. That’s all they know. They don’t know the difference between ideal and real because they don’t have real gases! That’s why they don’t know what I’m talking about.

    You won’t understand my gibe about warmists having no sound in their world, because you don’t know what I’m talking about.

    For warmists nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide are the basic description of the imaginary ideal gas – they take literally that molecules have no volume, no weight because no gravity, no interactions, no attractions..

    That’s why their supermolecule carbon dioxide can stay up in their atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years accumulating! They have no water cycle because they have no rain, they don’t have rain because “Buoyancy does NOT apply to gases” as Warner has so adamantly said. So they have no water evaporating because lighter than air, they have no carbon dioxide’s and water’s irresistable attraction for each other creating carbonic acid, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid. They have no heavier than air carbon dioxide displacing air to come down to the ground unless work is being done to change that, because of all the above imaginary fisics!

    Warmists live in the Alice through the looking glass land, THEY HAVE CREATED a WHOLE NEW FICTIONAL FISICS OF THEIR IMAGINARY EARTH!

    They have no heat capacity because they have no effin’ molecules! They have no lapse rate because they have no gravity! Their ‘gravity’ is pressure from the side of the container! Their container is their imagined glass all around the Earth through which the heat of the Sun can’t penetrate! Hence their claim that shortwave heats their Earth’s land and oceans! And they seriously defend this nonsense.

    You don’t know how utterly stupid warmist fisics if you haven’t bothered to read what I’ve been saying..

    ..THEY DON’T KNOW HOW UTTERLY ABSURD THEIR FISICS!

    Warmists and warmists pretending to be sceptics mix up everything, giving properties of one thing to another, like giving the Sun’s invisible heat thermal infrared to visible shortwave. There is no internal consistency in the imaginary fisics, because they can imagine whatever impossible thing they want.

    Their ideal gas molecules zip through their empty space atmosphere at vast speeds thoroughly mixing by ideal gas diffusion or, they mix by Brownian motion! They don’t have a fluid gas medium for Brownian motion! Do they care? They don’t even understand it to care. So they extrapolate from nanometre scale Brownian motion in a fluid to the whole of their empty vacuum space ideal gas gravity less atmosphere! Stupid isn’t a strong enough word for this.

    Warmists believe it because they have been brainwashed through the education system to believing this collection of mix and make up properties and out of context law memes is real world physics, they show ‘experiments’ to prove it.. A scent bottle opened in a class room proves it! They have no convection.

    Their molecules of gas HAVE NO PROPERTIES. That’s why they don’t understand electromagnetic waves – they don’t have properties in anything. It’s all been taken out of their comic cartoon KT97 and variations energy budget.

    Are the caps working? Are you paying attention to what I’m saying here?

    Warmists have a completely fictional fisics which begins with their fictional ideal gas in an empty space container scenario.

    And if you agree with Warner that “gases have no buoyancy” then you are no more an engineer than they are scientists. Imaginary scientists in an imaginary world.

    That’s what is digusting here. You lot passing yourselves off as real world scientists and fuelling the take over of our personal freedoms by the puppet masters who created these fictional fisics memes for you. And you’re not scientists enough to see that.

    Yet.

  259. Myrrh says:

    ENOUGH BULLSHITTING

    Prove that Visible light from the Sun heats the oceans as per the junk fictional fisics of your puppet masters. Until you try you won’t be able to tell the difference between heat and light, or understand temperature.

    Water is a transparent medium for visible light. It does not absorb it.

    To remind: your fictional world with its atmosphere of empty space of ideal gas molecules in which clouds magically appear still claims to have the same proportion surface ocean and land and claims that shortwave converts these directly to heat and claims that the heat from the Sun which is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us at the speed of electromagnetic waves doesn’t reach the surface and so doesn’t heat land and oceans.

    In the real world the thermal energy direct from the Sun, called beam, does reach the surface, and this is what heats up water by vibrational resonance of the molecules of water in the oceans and us, we are mainly water, and this thermal energy from the Sun is thermal infrared, it is invisible. We feel it as heat because it penetrates our bodies and warms us up*.

    Shortwave light direct from the Sun in the real world works on electronic transition level, it is neither capable of moving whole molecules of water into vibrational resonance nor of being absorbed by them. Water in the real world is a transparent medium for shortwave. Which means that shortwave are transmitted through without being absorbed. Which means shortwave beam light, direct from the Sun, has no way of heating the water of the oceans.

    Prove that shortwave beam LIGHT from the Sun is capable of heating the oceans in the real world, or admit it doesn’t.

    Your claim, you prove it.

    Until you do you’re talking through your posteriors.

    Your idiot fisics claims that visible light is what heats us. Because you can’t tell the difference between heat and light. An incandescent bulb radiates 95% invisible thermal infrared, heat, and 5% visible light, light. You claim that the 5% visible light from the incandescent bulb is what we feel as heat because you claim that visible converts matter to heat**.

    You either know how utterly stupid this claim is and are pushing it anyway, or you have been completely taken in by the deliberate creation of this fictional fisics to promote the AGW scare.

    I don’t care which category you fall into, but if you’re not in the first, then you should be reading this exchange with due attention. You try and decide who is talking real world physics and who is knowingly talking crap with the deliberate intention to confuse. And try not to get distracted..

    ——————–
    * NASA: “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.
    Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

    **It is simply a physical fact in the real world that an incandescent light bulb radiates 95% heat, which is the invisible thermal infrared, and 5% visible light.

    Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
    March 1, 2011 at 6:11 am
    Myrrh says:
    February 28, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    I’m really at a loss to understand any of this. How on earth does Visible light and near short wave heat the Earth

    Myrrh, you really need to get outside more and sit in the Sunshine and feel the warmth! That is how visible and near-visible (“shortwave”) light warms he Earth.

    If you don’t or cannot get outside, turn on an old-fashioned incandescent light bulb and hold your hand near it (not too close, you will get burned). Feel the heat? That is shortwave light because the filament is heated to temperatures similar to the Sun’ surface. You can tell it is shortwave because you can see the light.
    ——————–

    Talking crap doesn’t miraculously become real physics just because someone is a PhD..

    Now, back to flip side of the AGWScience Fiction claim, that the atmosphere is transparent to shortwave and this passes through without heating it.

    The real gas heavy volume of fluid gas atmosphere* above us weighing a ton on our shoulders and kept in place by gravity is not a transparent medium for visible light in our real world, the electrons of the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen absorb it and reflect/scatter it back out, as explained previously.

    How much does the visible light in your comic cartoon energy budget heat the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen since you claim that absorption of visible light converts matter to heat?

    Your claim, you prove it.

    ———————–

    *The heavy ocean of gas which is the real atmosphere of our world is not empty space, it is not a vacuum, SB does not apply. To understand the difference between real gas molecules which have volume and weight etc. and the imaginary construct ideal gas molecules and scenario claimed for the empty atmosphere AGWSF fisics, where ideal gas molecules without volume or weight (which is gravity) or attraction zip around diffusing at great speeds bouncing off each other to ‘mix thoroughly’ to give the fictional base for the energy budget of radiation only and no convection etc., simply learn how sound travels.

    http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/sound-waves.html HOW SOUND TRAVELS

    Sound cannot travel in empty space.

    I hope you can hear me.

    ————————

    Prove that shortwave beam LIGHT from the Sun is capable of heating the oceans in the real world, or admit it doesn’t.

    Your claim, you prove it.

    How much does the visible light in your comic cartoon energy budget heat the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen since you claim that absorption of visible light converts matter to heat?

    Your claim, you prove it.

    Until you do you’re talking through your posteriors.

  260. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    &

  261. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    <blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>

  262. Mike the convict says:

    From Australia’s premier scientific organisation comes a news story that the BoM and CSIRO have recorded the highest levels of CO2 for 800,000 years. Apparently the rest of the world has so far ignored this Australian sourced record.

    <a href=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degrees-by-2070/3887672

    Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, while the last decade in Australia was the warmest on record, CSIRO scientists say.

    The findings are released in the CSIRO’s annual State of the Climate report, which has been released today.

    The report says Australia’s annual-average daily maximum temperatures have increased by 0.75 degrees Celsius since 1910.

    Australian temperatures are forecast to rise by between 1C and 5C by 2070 “when compared with the climate of recent decades.”

    Is it just me but do the two people being interviewed look a tiny bit like the cat who stole the cream?

  263. Mike the convict says:

    From Australia’s premier scientific organisation comes a news story that the BoM and CSIRO have recorded the highest levels of CO2 for 800,000 years. Apparently the rest of the world has so far ignored this Australian sourced record.

    Atmospheric CO2 levels hit 800,000-year high: CSIRO

    Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, while the last decade in Australia was the warmest on record, CSIRO scientists say.

    The findings are released in the CSIRO’s annual State of the Climate report, which has been released today.

    The report says Australia’s annual-average daily maximum temperatures have increased by 0.75 degrees Celsius since 1910.

    Australian temperatures are forecast to rise by between 1C and 5C by 2070 “when compared with the climate of recent decades.”

  264. John Whitman says:

    Moderators,

    Just checking the correctness of the following html tag intensive paragraph

    ———-

    “Even psychopaths CAGW fanatics need to self-justify their intellectual violence on independent thinkers (aka skeptics) and I don’t think his their real motive is avenging insult. It’s got to be rooted in fantasies he’s they have had since childhood but he they frame his their victims as bad people so he they can feel righteous.

  265. Agile Aspect says:

    Testing posting…

  266. DavidA says:

    He said:

    Is this a block quote?

    It should be.

    The end.

    italic
    bold

  267. Bob Tisdale says:

    Testing bold face.

    And you could add my book to your reading list, If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their Deceptive Ads? It is now available for color Kindle readers:

  268. What an appealing report, continue to keep posting spouse

  269. jaymam says:

    Testing WordPress login.

  270. clipe says:

    This continental drift could also have changed the climate by redirecting currents in the ocean and atmosphere.

  271. clipe says:

    This continental drift could also have changed the climate by redirecting currents in the ocean and atmosphere.

  272. Spaul says:

    “What does that even mean, urban sustainability?” /i>

    It means “I am going to pretend to care about the environment while spending all your money.”

  273. Ric Werme says:

    I mistyped what I meant to say, which was you can use & # 8304; for a superscript 0.

    without spaces: ⁰

    And ampersand hash: &#8304;

  274. Gail Combs says:

    “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

  275. FerdiEgb says:

    Bart says:

    Let’s start with the basic equation
    dM/dt = c*(A + N) – kM

    With as constraint that 0 < dM/dt < A

    For brevity and clarity, let us assume that the throughput from oceans and vegetation is roughly constant and that kM is entirely into the oceans. N is solely an increase in output from volcanoes, so that there is no return flow, at least not on non-geological times…
    As well as for human emissions as for volcanic releases, there is no transfer function for their release into the atmosphere, that is simply additional. Thus c = 1.

    As M is constantly measured, we know the change over a year, for the past 50+ years. That can be expressed as dM/dt = b*A, where 0 < b < 1.
    Be aware that dM/dt is about total quantity, regardless of the ratio between N and A in M.

    By substitution in the basic equation, that gives;
    b*A = A + N – kM
    or
    N = kM – (1-b)*A
    as b N, what is observed. Thus in fact, N is only throughput, but we can make that clear in the next item.

    Now, in another year, a huge solar flare hits the earth and awakens all volcanoes, so that they double their emissions. The above equation now is:

    2*N = kM – (1-b)*A

    To reach that, either k or M should be (near) doubling. That is only possible by an increase of k or an increase of M. Either way, kM remains higher than 2*N as the observed term (1-b)*A didn’t change and still is positive.

    Thus despite a doubling of the extra natural input, there is no change in the observed atmospheric increase. That is possible if the sinks increased at (near) the same rate as the sources increased. An increase in k is very unlikely (one expects even a decrease, as more constraints in oceanic uptake come in), an increase (near doubling!) in M beyond +A is not observed either.

    The only alternative explanation which fits all equations and observations is that N is small, compared to A. Over the past 50 years, that is what is observed: natural variability around the trend is about +/- 2 GtC for a trend currently at 8 GtC/year.

  276. FerdiEgb says:

    Bart says:

    Let’s start with the basic equation
    dM/dt = c*(A + N) – kM

    With as constraint that 0 < dM/dt < A

    For brevity and clarity, let us assume that the throughput from oceans and vegetation is roughly constant and that kM is entirely into the oceans. N is solely an increase in output from volcanoes, so that there is no return flow, at least not on non-geological times…
    As well as for human emissions as for volcanic releases, there is no transfer function for their release into the atmosphere, that is simply additional. Thus c = 1.

    As M is constantly measured, we know the change over a year, for the past 50+ years. That can be expressed as dM/dt = b*A, where 0 < b < 1.
    Be aware that dM/dt is about total quantity, regardless of the ratio between N and A in M.

    By substitution in the basic equation, that gives;
    b*A = A + N – kM
    or
    N = kM – (1-b)*A
    as b < 1, that means that kM > N, what is observed. Thus in fact, N is only throughput, but we can make that clear in the next item.

    Now, in another year, a huge solar flare hits the earth and awakens all volcanoes, so that they double their emissions. The above equation now is:

    2*N = kM – (1-b)*A

    To reach that, either k or M should be (near) doubling. That is only possible by an increase of k or an increase of M. Either way, kM remains higher than 2*N as the observed term (1-b)*A didn’t change and still is positive.

    Thus despite a doubling of the extra natural input, there is no change in the observed atmospheric increase. That is possible if the sinks increased at (near) the same rate as the sources increased. An increase in k is very unlikely (one expects even a decrease, as more constraints in oceanic uptake come in), an increase (near doubling!) in M beyond +A is not observed either.

    The only alternative explanation which fits all equations and observations is that N is small, compared to A. Over the past 50 years, that is what is observed: natural variability around the trend is about +/- 2 GtC for a trend currently at 8 GtC/year.

  277. FerdiEgb says:

    Bart says:

    Let’s start with the basic equation
    dM/dt = c*(A + N) – kM

    With as constraint that 0 < dM/dt < A

    For brevity and clarity, let us assume that the throughput from oceans and vegetation is roughly constant and that kM is entirely into the oceans. N is solely an increase in output from volcanoes, so that there is no return flow, at least not on non-geological times…
    As well as for human emissions as for volcanic releases, there is no transfer function for their release into the atmosphere, that is simply additional. Thus c = 1.

    As M is constantly measured, we know the change over a year, for the past 50+ years. That can be expressed as dM/dt = b*A, where 0 < b < 1.
    Be aware that dM/dt is about total quantity, regardless of the ratio between N and A in M.

    By substitution in the basic equation, that gives;
    b*A = A + N – kM
    or
    N = kM – (1-b)*A
    as b < 1, that means that kM > N, what is observed. Thus in fact, N is only throughput, but we can make that clear in the next item.

    Now, in another year, a huge solar flare hits the earth and awakens all volcanoes, so that they double their emissions. The above equation now is:

    2*N = kM – (1-b)*A

    To reach that, either k or M should be (near) doubling. That is only possible by an increase of k or an increase of M. Either way, kM remains higher than 2*N as the observed term (1-b)*A didn’t change and still is positive.

    Thus despite a doubling of the extra natural input, there is no change in the observed atmospheric increase. That is only possible if the sinks increased at (near) the same rate as the sources increased. Thus simply doubling the throughput. An increase in k is very unlikely (one expects even a decrease, as more constraints in oceanic uptake come in), an increase (near doubling!) in M beyond 0 < M < A is not observed either.

    The only alternative explanation which fits all equations and observations is that N is small, compared to A. Over the past 50 years, that is what is observed: natural variability around the trend is about +/- 2 GtC for a trend currently at 8 GtC/year.

  278. Luther Wu says:

    I’m running Firefox 11.0, but have received a server error msg twice this morning while attempting to post in another thread. The posts actually went through, but weren’t visible to me until after moderation. I just did installed all missing MS OS updates and this post is a test…
    I’ll post again, if the same msg is received.
    Thanks mods

  279. Luther Wu says:

    The test post went through just fine. Apparently, the Win7 update fixed the problem.

  280. Gail Combs says:

    Ray Hudson says:
    April 4, 2012 at 4:00 am

    This is the setup “science” so next they can claim that AGW causes people to flip out and use firearms to kill people in public places. You watch, it will happen, as sad as this may be.
    ______________________________________________

    I took a quick peak and found this

    pg 7
    Another major problem for the military is a high rate of active service member suicide… While suicide is the result of many complex factors, the linkage to global warming with respect to military personnel must be acknowledged.. Burning fossil fuel for energy means depending on foreign areas… Our service members will recognize that their own live and limbs were sacrificed even though alternate renewable sources of energy could be more available.

    So Ray, I think you are correct. The first part of the Strategy was to blame everything happening in the natural world on CAGW. Now they have moved to the next stage, blaming anxiety about every social catastrophe on CAGW. The last stage will be to declare “Denialism” a mental illness and have such people committed.

    Unfortunately the precedence has already been set and a new international diagnostic manual released. http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=46329572&afid=1Millions of healthy people – may be wrongly labeled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday. (Reuters ~ 3:07 PM EST February 9, 2012)

    Head Case: Can psychiatry be a science?

    …Within the profession, the manual that prescribes the criteria for official diagnoses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the D.S.M., has been under criticism for decades….

    In the case of a patient who exhibits the required number of symptoms, the D.S.M. specifies only one exception to a diagnosis of depression: bereavement…..

    Christopher Lane, a professor of English at Northwestern, argues that this is a blatant pathologization of a common personality trait for the financial benefit of the psychiatric profession and the pharmaceutical industry….

    Turning shyness into a mental disorder has many downstream consequences. As Steven Hyman, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, argues in a recent article, once a diagnosis is ensconced in the manual, it is legitimatized as a subject of scientific research. Centers are established (there is now a Shyness Research Institute, at Indiana University Southeast) and scientists get funding to, for example, find “the gene for shyness”—even though there was never any evidence that the condition has an organic basis. A juggernaut effect is built into the system. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/03/01/100301crat_atlarge_menand?currentPage=all

    And as the The Rosenhan Experiment shows once diagnosed as “mentally ill” the label sticks no matter what. So it is a bit of a facer to find another article by Psychology Today Field Guide to the Conspiracy Theorist: Dark Minds Thankfully the attack is on Alex Jones and not Climate Skeptics…. This time.

    …Conspiracy theories exist on a spectrum from mild suspicion to full-on paranoia, and brain chemistry may play a role. Dopamine rewards us for noting patterns and finding meaning in sometimes-insignificant events. It’s long been known that schizophrenics overproduce dopamine. “The earliest stages of delusion are characterized by an overabundance of meaningful coincidences,” explain Paul D. Morrison and R.M. Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London. “Jumping to conclusions” is a common reasoning style among the paranoid, find Daniel Freeman and his colleagues, also at the Institute of Psychiatry…

    I had read several years ago a comment from a nurse that in the USA nurses and doctors were told to identify those who were 9/11 truthers, birthers and other “Conspiracy Types” as “mentally ill” She was cautioning people to keep their political opinions to themselves or they might just find themselves in a mental institution.

    I hesitate to link to this but since Skeptics are now being lumped in with other “Conspiracy Types” it is worth paying attention to the example they offer.

    A psychologist Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D. said in August 29, 2009, “…Having been a psychologist for nearly thirty years now I am not at all surprised to find that such a thing has occurred. The United States government has routinely used (or should I say misused) psychologists to do their “dirty work,” and only recently has the American Psychological Association been willing to consider the ethical concerns that individual psychologists have had to deal with….” http://clareswinney.wordpress.com/incarcerated-in-a-psychiatric-ward-because-i-said-911-was-an-inside-job/

    This is definitely a future possibility we need to keep an eye on….

    A CLINICAL ANALYSIS OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT PHOBIA

    Ivor E. Tower, M.D.
    Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
    Volume 11, series 3, pages 4-5

    Abstract

    This study conclusively demonstrates that unfounded fear of government is a recognizable mental illness, closely related to paranoid schizophrenia. Anti-Government Phobia (AGP) differs from most mental illnesses, however, in that it is highly infectious and has an acute onset. Symptoms include extreme suspiciousness, conspiracy-mongering, delusional thought patterns, staunch “us against them” mentality, withdrawal from reality, and often religious fanaticism. Having the patient committed to a qualified mental health institution is the best option for family and loved ones. For this reason, all psychiatrists and family physicians should be provided with educational materials which will help them recognize the various symptoms and warning signs accompanying onset. Since comparatively little is known about Anti-Government Phobia at the present time, a government-funded health commission should be set up to oversee, and help focus, future research.

    Acknowledgements

    The writer wishes to thank the following individuals and organizations for contributing their expertise to this report: Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Rick Ross of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), the United States Justice Department (USJD), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/info_schedule_battle/Anti_Government_Phobia.html

  281. Gail Combs says:

    Tim Mantyla says: @ April 4, 2012 at 3:49 pm
    ….The main point, and the most vital one, which many seem to be avoiding, is that we have ALREADY exceeded our safe, healthy human capacity on the planet. The degradation of land, sea and air is powerful evidence, and so is the mass starvation, social ills, and other problems rampant around the globe…..
    ____________________________________
    The USA is in better shape than it has been for a hundred years. We now have more forests because wood is no longer burned for warmth. Mother Nature Network reports More trees than there were 100 years ago? It’s true! Protection and responsible harvesting are the reasons behind the success story. Pollution has been cleaned up since I was a kid in the fifties and sixties. We no longer dump chemicals and raw sewage into our rivers among other things. This shows a healthy, wealthy economy thanks to cheap energy PROTECTS the environment. All you have to do is look at the pollution in China to see the difference.

    Mass starvation is not because of a lack of food but because of manipulation by the World Trade Organization, and Goldman Sachs among others. President Clinton admitted it TWICE.

    You can lay much of the “social ills, and other problems rampant around the globe” directly at the World Bank’s or IMF’s door steps. This is the same World Bank that is squarely behind CAGW. The same World Bank that provided Robert Watson as leader of the IPCC. Therefore it should be no surprise that the Guardian UK reported “The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents … The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment”… hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank

    Oh and in case you were wondering the Mass Media that you are getting your info from has been controlled by J P Morgan (bank) in 1917 and now.

    CHEAP abundant energy is the solution to everything you are complaining about.

    This is an example of what fuel and the fertilizer produced from oil has done to food production in the USA. (From http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarm1.htm )
    In 1830 it took 250-300 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels of wheat from 5 acres with a walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail.

    In 1930 -it took 15-20 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels of wheat from 5 acres with a 3-bottom gang plow, tractor, 10-foot tandem disk, harrow, 12-foot combine, and trucks. (Average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer: 6,599,913 tons)

    In 1987 it took 3 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels of wheat from 3 acres with tractor, 35-foot sweep disk, 30-foot drill, 25-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks.

    Why in heck do you want to go back to spending every daylight hour following the north end of a south facing mule and other back breaking labor? Why do you want to reduce us back to serfdom?

  282. Michel says:

    This is a test using Greasemonky together with the CA Audit script
    This is bold
    And this is bold and italic
    H2O or CO2 help underst W m-2.
    And inserting an image is simple:

  283. Michel says:

    well, neither subscript nor superscript are working. Image insertion was not successful

  284. clipe says:

    size

  285. Agile Aspect says:

    [tex]R_{\mu \nu} – \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}R + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G
    }{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}[/tex]

  286. phlogiston says:

    Why they do this is probably to give greater weighting to the tropics where end-glacial temperature rises were smallest and latest – as described here at the inconvenient skeptic

  287. phlogiston says:

    Why they do this is probably to give greater weighting to the tropics where end-glacial temperature rises were smallest and latest – as described here at the inconvenient skeptic

  288. phlogiston says:

    temperature rises were smallest and latest – as described here at the inconvenient skeptic

  289. Agile Aspect says:

    Last try – this example is from

    http://en.support.wordpress.com/latex/

    i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left|\Psi(t)\right>=H\left|\Psi(t)\right>

  290. Henry Clark says:

    Some people seem to have hoped this article would demonstrate absolutely all effects whatsoever of human activity could be ruled out, down to the tiny slice of climate history which is the past 2 or 3 decades (although what is seen is an astronomical contrast to the “public education” of the global warming alarmism movement which really tries to make the public think most climate history in the 20th century and far beyond was driven by CO2 primarily).

    Such would not happen. Even this article, if you read it fully and closely, has remarks like “in marked contrast to reconstructions based on sunspot number [Solanki and Fligger,
    1998 in which the irradiance and the temperature are not correlated after 1978
    ” … as well as “everything from ozone change to volcanoes, human activities, and ocean cycles has a non-zero effect on climate.” Moreover, the heavily referenced cosmic ray theorist Professor Nir J. Shaviv of sciencebits.com in his papers does not argue that human emissions have 0.00 degrees effect but rather that they have had a small fraction of a degree Celsius effect.

    In fact, for on the order of a degree Celsius or less temperature rise (aside from when overwhelmed by other factors) to occur from hypothetical future doubling of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels matches the estimates of most of the very top skeptic scientists including Roy Spencer (google Spencer Global Warming 101) and Richard Lindzen. That reduces the warming from it to being minor and less than the Holocene Climate Optimum, a period warmer than now which the polar bears survived fine and which was beneficial to mankind, when warmth in near-arctic northern hemisphere regions increased vegetation as we can see in the fossil record.

    A while back, someone posted somewhere on this website a graph of carbon-14 versus temperature in the years preceding and then up to the Maunder Minimum. I recall looking at it and noticing how there were essentially two lags, each of several years. There were three stages IIRC:

    1) First, the final semi-regular solar cycle must peak.
    2) Secondly, after several years of decline in solar activity, there is relatively extreme cumulative ramp-up in cosmic rays as seen in carbon-14 levels.
    3) Thirdly, only then is there the really major temperature decline, after *another* several years lag.

    Even assuming the predictions of a second Maunder Minimum coming soon (finally the end of the current Modern Maximum) turn out to be correctly (which they probably will), we are not in a Maunder Minimum yet. In fact, right now, solar activity is increasing at the moment as the current cycle 24 has not peaked quite yet. Anyway, if so, you can expect the doom of the global warming movement roughly around a decade from now, once really major temperature decline appears, too much to hide from the public even with data fudging, at which nobody will be get away as well with how their climate models implicitly treat cosmic rays as 0% effect by neglecting them entirely (an omitted variable fallacy).

    We can not predict the weather reliably so don’t expect anything about a single year or couple years at a time. I have never seen anybody utterly properly account for everything from cosmic rays to El Ninos all at once. Probably that is because it would take hundreds to thousands of pages to discuss, plus a huge number of manhours. Those with enough funding are environmentalists hardly inclined to do so, while skeptic scientists don’t have that level of funding and work more individually.

    In fact, most skeptics seem to focus either on ocean cycles (like the AMO and PDO) or on solar activity / cosmic rays but not both at once. The fascinating question of how exactly they superimpose and relate is underanswered yet.

    Personally, I periodically like to look at Spencer’s graph of UAH satellite temperatures:

    Right now, the curved black line which is the purely-unofficial overall curve fit is just starting to curve down. Later this decade is when we should start to see true global cooling. In the next decade, it may become so blatant even to the public in direct consequences that the global warming enviropolitical movement collapses by some time in the 2020s. A second Little Ice Age doesn’t develop overnight.

  291. vangrungy says:

    [alt-255] [alt-255] [alt-30] [enter] [alt 30] [alt 255] [alt 30]

  292. Henry Clark says:

  293. Testing says:

    Odd that comments not appearing … testing.

    [They seem visible to mods. Robt]

  294. John West says:

    Table test

    Year Wheat Rye Barley Oats Peas Beans Potato Hops Straw
    1810 13.05 7.43 5.83 3.47 6.89 6.75 3.15 124.85 57.67
    1811 11.73 5.66 5.12 3.34 5.81 5.83 3.01 173.13 70.75
    1812 14.38 9.18 8.09 5.39 8.31 8.49 4.24 150.15 56.42
    1813 13.46 9.59 7.09 4.67 9.91 9.74 5.2 262.79 40.83
    1814 9.68 5.97 4.53 3.11 6.54 5.75 3.3 198.55 42.33
    1815 8.14 5.08 3.67 2.86 4.97 4.57 3.3 186.35 35.75
    1816 8.89 5.09 4.11 3.29 4.44 3.95 3.48 220.02 44.04
    1817 12.16 6.95 5.98 3.93 6.33 5.77 3.97 340.82 39.12
    1818 10.82 6.84 6.53 3.93 5.91 7.24 4.04 305.13 50.5
    1819 8.84 6.98 5.55 3.42 6.68 7.42 4.18 91.43 58.17
    1820 8.26 5.2 4.1 2.93 5.11 5.41 3.57 78.62 31

  295. Marlow Metcalf says:

    Test Test Test

  296. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Just checking if I am doing a link correctly before I post it on a WUWT post.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/4/21/madrid-1995.html

    John

  297. kforestcat says:

    TEST

    Well ahead of us, as usual, Willis.

    After reading the paper, I have additional issues with what looks like a serious lack of management oversight and quality control by NOAA. Examples in this paper are too numerous to fully document, but here is a sampling.

    Consider where Syd Levitus states:

    “Argo profiling float data hat have been corrected for systematic errors provide data through a nominal depth of 1750-2000 of the post-2044 period on a near-global basis. We have used data that were available as of January 2011. Many of these data have been corrected by the Argo delayed-mode quality control teams. If Agro data have not been corrected at the time we downloaded these data we still used them”. (Page 3, Lines 54-58l, bolding added for emphasis)

    Observation: Are we to understand that NOAA’s management really allows its scientific staff to bypass the agency’s own quality control process and use whatever data suits them?

    Where Levitus states:

    Our temperature anomaly fields could be considered to be more representative of the 2000-1750 m layer of the World Ocean however we have compared the OHC1750 and OHC2000 and find no difference between them. We hope to acquire additional deep ocean data from research cruises so we have opted to present results for the 0-2000 layer. ” (Page 3, Lines 65-69, bolding added for emphasis)

    Observation: Lacking adequate data for in the 1750-2000 meter range Levitus uses the data anyway; because, he “hopes” to acquire adequate data in future research cruises? Since when are an Agency’s scientific personnel supposed to make conclusions based on data a senior staff member “hopes” to acquire data at some future time?

    Where Levitus states:

    Unlike salinity data from profiling floats, temperature data do not appear to have significant drift problems associated with them. (Page 3, Lines 58-60, bolding added for emphasis)

    Observation: This suggests there are significant drift problems associated with the NOAA’s salinity data. Since the author’s specific gravity (density) and specific heats are calculated from the salinity & temperature data gathered, then one would think an error here would be cause for concern. After all, Heat content = Temperature x Density x Specific Heat x Conversion factors.

    Given Levitus’s brought up the issue, one would expect the he would discuss the significant “salinity” drift problem to the extent necessary to draw a conclusion or satisfy a readers potential concerns. In view of the lead author’s own doubts; can one really conclude, with confidence, that NOAA’s calculated “heat content anomalies” are meaningful?

    Where Levitus states:

    It is our understanding that problems with profiling floats identified by Barker et al. [2011] have for the most part been corrected”. (Page 3, Lines 60-61; bolding added for emphasis)

    Observation: Where the heck is the NOAA’s management and quality control oversight? Either the NOAA’s quality control officer can certify the “problems” have been corrected and cite internal documentation to that effect or not. Also, just when is a correction “for the most part” a satisfactory response?

    Where Levitus states:

    Also we believe that our quality control procedures (Boyler et al. [2009]; Levitus and Boyer [1994] have eliminated most remaining egregious problems” (Page 3. Lines 61-64; bolding added for emphasis)

    Observation: “We believe” “most” of the “egregious problems” have been eliminated? Any project manager worth his salt would require the author to state exactly which “egregious problems” have been eliminated and cite the documentation showing correction. Moreover, exactly what “egregious problems” remain and to what extent could they impact the papers conclusions?

    I understand this is a draft; but, this is the kind of sloppy work I would expect from an intern not a established professional.

    Regards,
    Kforestcat

  298. kforestcat says:

    The more I read this paper the more concerned I get.

    On page 4 at line 84-86 Levitus at el state:

    “To compute heat content at each gridpoint the specific heat and density were computed using annual climatological values of temperature and salinity from Locarnini et al. [2010] and Antonov et al. [2010]“

    The way I’m reading this the authors did not actually calculate the heat content (enthalpy) of the water at each depth with the passage of time. Instead they assumed that the salinity, specific heat (heat capacity), and density did not change over time. The only variable they changed was ocean temperature.

    As a chemical engineer, that series of assumptions gives me considerable heartburn. I see two core problems. First, it is not reasonable to assume that the salinity will remain the same at a given depth with time. Second, the thermodynamic properties of salt water vary considerably with salinity. In particular specific heat (heat capacity) and enthalpy.

    Of particular concern is that the heat capacity of salt water varies so much with salinity that I don’t feel it can be treated it as a constant when calculating changes in the enthalpy of sea water.

    You can see the variation of specific heat with salinity here. http://web.mit.edu/seawater/ & look for “Downloads” at the bottom and click on “Tables of properties in pdf format”)

    I became doubly concerned when Levitus stated:

    “Unlike salinity data from profiling floats, temperature data do not appear to have significant drift problems associated with them. (Page 3, Lines 58-60, bolding added for emphasis)

    This implies that there are “significant drift problems” with the salinity data.

    To get a rough idea of the potential for error I selected a temperature of 10C to evaluate. I selected 10C largely because this is roughly equivalent to the temperature of sea water at depth of 600 feet and because using the value minimized the amount of interpolation needed. For simplification, I ignored adiabatic cooling with depth (largely because the data I had handy is at atmospheric pressure).

    For typical ocean temperatures with depth see here: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/sm_temperature_depth.jpg

    I used the following data

    At 10C and a salinity of 30 ppt the enthalpy of salt water = 39.8 kJ/kg
    At 10C and a salinity of 40 ppt the enthalpy of salt water = 39.1 kJ/kg

    From this I calculated:

    The average change in enthalpy per unit salinity = 0.07 kJ/kg ppt

    The average enthalpy of ocean water at an average salinity of 35 ppt = 39.45 kJ/kg
    (deliberately not rounded)

    The error in calculating the heat content by missing one unit of salinity =
    = 0.7 / 39.45 *100 = 1.77% error.

    Now a 1.77% error for a 1 ppt change is cause for concern, because, ocean salinity varies by 32 to 37 ppt. And can be as low as 16 ppt in the black sea.

    (see here: http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/water/salinity1.htm)

    As a check, I also back calculated how much of a salinity change would be needed equal the entire 0.09 C temperature change proposed by the authors. Noting that a decrease in salinity will result in an increase the ocean temperatures with the same ocean heat content.

    At 10.09 C and a salinity of 35 ppt the enthalpy of salt water = 39.81 kJ/kg (not rounded)

    Change in enthalpy with a 0.09 C temperature change = 0.362 kJ/kg (not rounded)

    Change in salinity equal to a 0.09 C temperature change = 0.362 / 0.700
    = 0.517 ppt

    As a final check, I recalculated the figures above on a volume basis, after taking density variations with salinity into account (data not shown). The figures above did not change significantly.

    From the above, it appears that the authors failed to properly take salinity’s impact on heat content and enthalpy into account. Coupled with the author’s stated concerns regarding “significant drift problems” with the salinity data… well it leaves me with serious doubts.

    Couple this with Willis’s concerns, and… the whole thing appears to be a real mess.

    Regards,
    Kforestcat

    P.S. I there is always a possibility I’m miss-interpreting Levitus approach or I’m missing something fundamental. Please let me know if you see a flaw in my analysis.

  299. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 25, 2012 at 6:01 pm
    >> Leif you seem to be favouring the CO2 cause for warming, is that correct?.
    “No not at all”

    I’ve looked a bit at your research page plus some other web searches, and, while obviously I would never pretend to be as familiar with your research and writings as you are yourself, I am not immediately finding anything directly or indirectly significantly against the CO2-dominant hypothesis. You would likely respond by noting the sun is your speciality, and you publish in your area of expertise as a professional scientist, not writing about other topics, so you could not be expected to be able to provide such a link. Okay. Dr. Lindzen, Shaviv, Spencer, Svensmark, etc. do, but one can say not everyone should argue or argue much on every topic. Alright. Going on, each of your publications I have noticed so far has been either neutral (on separate topics and presumably quite valid but not related) or indirectly aimed at disproving papers which do support a solar (/ cosmic ray) climate connection. You would likely respond by essentially implying it just happens that the papers with inaccuracies tend more often or always to error in a manner of overestimating rise in solar activity in the late 20th century compared to the LIA (and the resulting natural contribution to temperature change), and you are just supporting scientific accuracy, where you would as readily argue against an underestimate.

    Major solar/GCR climate influence is the one strong skeptic counter to the CO2-dominant hypothesis, providing a better explanation of the bulk of temperature variation over such as the past several centuries overall (not as a sole cause but as a major influence). Yes, I know you would or will say it is not such a counter. But let’s suppose that the direction of argument in your comments at WUWT and elsewhere was successful, including others copying your data choice at times when a post-Mann-era cosmogenic isotope reconstruction conflicts with one published before the most political era.

    You earlier said “I would go along with 10% for solar and 10% for CO2” and that the other 80% is “not divided, just internal climate variability.

    Saying in an one-liner here that you believe CO2 is 10% of the effect leads to fitting in here, with the human reactions of many skeptics being such that raises trust in everything else said. Let’s suppose skeptics believed what you are essentially telling them to choose as their argument. How well would that stand up afterwards to the CO2 hypothesis, for say, explaining temperature history over the past, say, 500 years? It looks to me like it would be more or less as weak as the CO2-dominant hypothesis for poor explanation over that period, no longer having as much of an advantage in correlation, no longer as potentially capable of defeating the CAGW-supporting enviropolitical ideological movement which has the funding advantage.

    If one excuses the bluntness, as I remarked in an earlier comment:

    Alternatives dismissing the effect of solar (and GCR) variation tend to be lol BS if someone ever seriously attempts to apply them to the past few centuries or millenia at once, either so vaguely unbaked that nobody can even link to a write-up in any detail or else lousy like the recently falsified attempt at trying to explain the Little Ice Age through volcano eruptions alone, neglecting the sun.

    While partially admitting the effect of solar variation (though dismissing most of it by denying GCR effects), CAGW-side climate models tend to attempt backcasting only the past century or so, and even that they only superficially sometimes manage by creatively adjusting assumed aerosol values to whatever makes a curve fit under unrealistic sensitivity assumptions: GIGO in computer programming = Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    Can you link to a graph or write-up of the past several centuries at once which plausibly explains or correlates much at all with overall temperature trends over that period while assuming 0% or anywhere near just 10% from solar factors … not just a single straight line linear temperature trend since the end of the LIA alone, nor a discussion of the 20th century alone, but at least somewhat more complex substantial partial correlation over such as the past 500 years so as to be a bit like solar/GCR theory?

    Basically, could you suggest how your overall direction of argument leads to a better explanation of climate as in the example of the past few centuries?

    Mine is, in part, the cosmic ray flux (old Be-10 proxy reconstruction) versus temperature graph I posted before (with prior notes on the minor typo):

    I do have to dismiss some recent revisionism in temperature / cosmogenic isotope reconstructions, but there are enough contradictions between older and post-Mann-era studies for not believing everything to be unavoidable anyway. When there are major outright contradictions, the only 3 possibilities are (1) the older ones are wrong or misleading (2) the newer ones are wrong or misleading … or, for fairness in logical argument, that (3) they are all wrong or misleading. #3 is partially true in the sense of the unintentional component of measurement error, but I have seen too much of the cunning of the public and undercover supporters of the “mainstream” CO2-dominant AGW environmentalist movement not to by default suspect #2 more than #1.

  300. Marlow Metcalf says:

    Really people. It should not be left to me to do math.

    Current Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area sq km
    (ave) 12,961,000 – (current) 12,877,000 = -84,000

    Current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area sq km
    (current) 6,238.000 – (ave) 5,558,000 = + 680,000

    12,961,000 + 5,558,000 = 18,519,000 Total World Sea Ice (Average)
    680,000 – 84,000 = 596,000 Total Sea Ice above World Average
    596,000 / 18,519,000 = .0321831 of 1% above average
    Not much but a win is a win.

  301. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Just proofing some HTML commands.

    – – – – –

    Josh,

    All the world’s a stage cartoon by Josh,
    And all the men and women merely players cartoon characters;
    They have their exits and their entrances,
    And one man Josh in his time plays many parts draws many cartoons,

    Apologies to Shakespeare.

    John

  302. Luther Wu says:

  303. EternalOptimist says:

    testing amending a caption

    [URL="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdLrbL_tfo6fQdrL6fvHIjwuR0TX_ouao24tftZSL96qOFgwGJ"]turn on the oxygen machine, not the co2 you fool[/URL]

  304. Poriwoggu says:

    What disturbs me is that skeptics don’t seem to be questioning the basic premise of AGW:

    CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is too high and must be lowered

    We have raised the CO2 120ppm over the baseline concentration. The “anomaly” appears to be between 0 and 0.4 &degF. This is the only real world test of increasing CO2 concentration.

    The population in 2100 will be over 10 billion. Doubling the CO2 and increasing the temperature a degree or so will give us 50% more plant growth. This is the best chance to feed those people. The current policy of turning food into fuel is causing world unrest and what are essentially food riots.

    We should be looking at using the methane clathrates from the arctic, and higher CO2 fossil fuels like the tar sands to reach the higher CO2 level that we need.

  305. Poriwoggu says:

    test of °F

  306. wayne says:

    Showing clear in Latex editor so one more time for rgb:
    \large \rho_{CO_2} = N (\int_{-\infty}^t E(t') { f_0 + \sum_{i=1}^3 f_i e^{- \frac{t-t'}{\tau_i}}}

  307. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Checking out a pic link to tinypics.

  308. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    trying tinypic link to a pic I drafted for Anthony’s funny billboard post.

    John

  309. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    another tinypic link test

    John

  310. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    another tinypic link test for a billboard for Anthony’s post on fun with billboards.

    John

  311. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Another tinypic link check for a billboard.

    John

  312. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Another tinypic link check.

  313. John Whitman says:

    another tinypic test link

  314. John Whitman says:

    yet another tinypic test link

  315. John Whitman says:

    more testing of a tinypic link

  316. Heggs says:

    Artistic wanker testing 123

  317. George says:

    Can we have the Cryosphere Today sea ice anomaly graphs removed from the Sea Ice Reference Page? They have not been updated in quite some time and are broken. Can they be moved down with the other “broken” graphs?

  318. Wellington says:

    Test link:

  319. Wellington says:

    Test link again:

  320. Mac the Knife says:

    ‘ I’m mad as hell… and I’m not going to take it any more!’

  321. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    I’m sure Vice President Gore means well but he’s got it all wrong. In Albury, NSW, Australia we know the real cause of “global warming”.

    Our fearless defender of “the science” the CSIRO is understood to be developing daylight saving pollution reduction regulations, which the Gillard government will enforce by introduction of a tax commencing at $23 per daylight saving hour, per person, per day.

  322. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Image test

  323. clipe says:

    Observed at:
    Toronto Pearson Int'l Airport
    Date:

    7:00 PM EDT Sunday 27 May 2012

    Condition:
    Distant Precipitation

    Pressure:
    101.7 kPa

    Tendency:
    falling

    Visibility:
    24 km

    Air Quality Health Index:
    4

    Temperature:
    20.9°C

    Dewpoint:
    11.8°C

    Humidity:
    56 %

    Wind:
    S 15 km/h

  324. clipe says:

    Observed at:
    Toronto Pearson Int'l Airport
    Date:
    7:00 PM EDT Sunday 27 May 2012
    Condition:
    Distant Precipitation
    Pressure:
    101.7 kPa
    Tendency:
    falling
    Visibility:
    24 km
    Air Quality Health Index:
    4
    Temperature:
    20.9°C
    Dewpoint:
    11.8°C
    Humidity:
    56 %
    Wind:
    S 15 km/h

  325. clipe says:

    Observed at:
    Toronto Pearson Int’l Airport
    Date:

    7:00 PM EDT Sunday 27 May 2012

    Condition:
    Distant Precipitation

    Pressure:
    101.7 kPa

    Tendency:
    falling

    Visibility:
    24 km

    Air Quality Health Index:
    4

    Temperature:
    20.9°C

    Dewpoint:
    11.8°C

    Humidity:
    56 %

    Wind:
    S 15 km/h

  326. Mac the Knife says:

    Nucking Futz, Indeed!

  327. Mac the Knife says:

    Nucking Futz, Indeed!

  328. clipe says:

    Krugman started by recalling that in Herman Kahn’s 1968 book The Year 2000, Kahn predicted that by the end of the 20th century the average worker would put in 30 hours a week and would enjoy 13 weeks of vacation. Quite wrong, Krugman noted. Kahn had been far too optimistic about the advances of technology and the benefits they would deliver. But Krugman had learned from Kahn’s mistake, he said, and so he was able to make a series of predictions, including: “the growth of the Internet will slow drastically,” it will become clear by 2005 “that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” and “10 years from now the phrase ‘information economy’ will sound silly.”

  329. clipe says:

    Krugman started by recalling that in Herman Kahn’s 1968 book The Year 2000, Kahn predicted that by the end of the 20th century the average worker would put in 30 hours a week and would enjoy 13 weeks of vacation. Quite wrong, Krugman noted. Kahn had been far too
    optimistic about the advances of technology and the benefits they would deliver. But Krugman had learned from Kahn’s mistake, he said, and so he was able to make a series of predictions, including: “the growth of the Internet will slow drastically,” it will become clear by 2005 “that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” and “10 years from now the phrase ‘information economy’ will sound silly.”

  330. clipe says:

    Krugman started by recalling that in Herman Kahn’s 1968 book The Year 2000, Kahn predicted that by the end of the 20th century the average worker would put in 30 hours a week and would enjoy 13 weeks of vacation. Quite wrong, Krugman noted. Kahn had been far too optimistic about the advances of technology and the benefits they would deliver. But Krugman had learned from Kahn’s mistake, he said, and so he was able to make a series of predictions, including: “the growth of the Internet will slow drastically,” it will become clear by 2005 “that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” and “10 years from now the phrase ‘information economy’ will sound silly.”

  331. clipe says:

    Krugman started by recalling that in Herman Kahn’s 1968 book The Year 2000, Kahn predicted that by the end of the 20th century the average worker would put in 30 hours a week and would enjoy 13 weeks of vacation. Quite wrong, Krugman noted. Kahn had been far too
    optimistic about the advances of technology and the benefits they would deliver. But Krugman had learned from Kahn’s mistake, he said, and so he was able to make a series of predictions, including: “the growth of the Internet will slow drastically,” it will become clear by 2005 “that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” and “10 years from now the phrase ‘information economy’ will sound silly.”

  332. just some guy says:

    I’d like to add to David’s comments by providing a direct answer to Phil’s question:

    “Do you honestly believe that ten trees from Siberia are representative of the average temperature of the entire earth?”

    The answer is, obviously, no. No one in their right mind would think that 10 trees can tell us the average temperature history of the entire earth. But thank you, Phil, for making our point for us.
    It does appear, however, that one single tree from Siberia is responsible for the distinct hockey-stock shape of the graph represented in around half of the studies made by the hockey team, and used by the IPCC. (The remaining studies are based on a few other trees.)
    This is discussed here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
    And many, many, other places around the blogosphere over the past 5 or 6 years.
    I suspect you may now revert to your standard talking point and complain that blogs are not “peer-reviewed” and don’t appear in prestigious journals like “Science” or “Nature.”
    Here’s your response to that, in advance. That actual data used in Briffa (2000), a article which was thoroughly pal-reviewed by the Hockey-Team, can be found here. . Take a look, load it up in a spreadsheet, and view the data for yourself. There is one data-set in the shape of a hockey stick, Yamal. And, as we now see from the late release of the data, one single tree from Yamal, is shaped like a Hockey stick, YAD061.
    But don’t fret, Phil! I know how you can help the team out. Get yourself an axe, move in to a cabin out in the hills, and start choppin’. I’m sure you’ll eventually find a tree or two with outer rings that are wider than the rings in the middle. You can than write a computer program that rigs the output to focus on your one tree, write a paper explaining how this proves AGW is real and alarming, and get it pal-reviewed. You’ll be famous! (Oh wait, someone already did that.)

  333. clipe says:

    AT THIS TIME WILL MAINTAIN 30% SEVERE PROBS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
    EXPECTED STRONG WINDS WITH THE FRONTAL CONVECTION AND FOR ISOLATED
    TORNADOES THAT COULD BE NOTED IF PRE-FRONTAL DISCRETE SUPERCELLS

    DEVELOP. HOWEVER...THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT A MORE WIDESPREAD
    EVENT MAY EVOLVE IF LOW LEVEL LAPSE RATES/INSTABILITY RESPOND PRIOR
    TO FRONTAL PASSAGE AND SEVERE PROBS MAY BE INCREASED TO ACCOUNT FOR
    THIS SCENARIO IN LATER OUTLOOKS.

  334. John M says:

    copner says:
    May 31, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Since he’s admitted to the first of these, and admitted to the second by implication, I don’t see how any investigation could clear him of wrongdoing, regardless of the investigation’s opinion about the strategy document.

    I’m sure you and many others are familiar with the Penn State “Inquiry” that “exonerated” Michael Mann, but it’s worthwhile bringing this out into the light of day occasionally. Those familiar with the “investigation” will recall that Allegation 2 was stated thusly:

    “Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?”

    (emphasis added)

    Despite 1)clear evidence from ClimateGate that Mann agreed to forward a request to Gene Wahl to delete e-mails releated to an FOIA request; 2) Mann himself in a newspaper interview stated that he knew such a request was wrong and he regretted that “he did not instantly object when a fellow climatologist asked him in 2008 to delete e-mails subject to Freedom of Information requests”; and 3) the Penn State panel purportedly had in its possession all of Michael Mann’s e-mails, which presumably had the the request he forwarded to Wahl,

    the panel still concluded

    The Inquiry Committee determined there was no substance to this allegation and further investigation of this allegation was not warranted.

    I can believe a certain kind of investigation could “clear” Gleick of wrongdoing.

  335. clipe says:

    Friday..Isolated non-severe thunderstorms are possible

  336. clipe says:

    Friday..Isolated non-severe thunderstorms are possible

  337. Steve P says:

    2x fail posting to “So Dinosaurs (sic) could fly”

    “Turning our attention for a moment to Earth’s twin, Venus…”

    I wish this misconception could be put to rest. The similarities are few, differences many.

    This false notion that helped get the entire CAGW scam rolling, along with an early, but mistaken belief that CO2 was responsible for the extremely high temperatures on Venus.

    I think Sagan trumped Velikovsky with that one, the latter having predicted the high temperatures on Venus, but who turned out to be “right for the wrong reasons.” Or so they say.

    After Hansen got wind of Sagan, he dropped dust, glommed onto CO2 as the heat devil on Venus, and turned his attention on Earth.

    Much of the early CAGW scare featured the specter of Venus looming in Earth’s future, and Hansen continues to deploy it.

    Rather than calling Venus “Earth’s Twin,” I’d suggest we use:

    Earth’s Fairy Godmother

  338. HankH says:

    Test

    [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/overlaid.gif/]

    [IMG]http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/2236/overlaid.gif[/IMG][/URL]

  339. Brian H says:

    degree symbol, also Alt-248 °
    cents sign Alt-155 ¢
    accent aigu with e Alt-130 é as in cliché
    Lots of others.

    For a table, use the pre tag: <pre> </pre>

     
    Column 1  Column 2
      item 1        item 2
      item 3        item 4
  340. Brian H says:

    To avoid forgetting the closing tag, create both open and close to start, then enter enclosed material between them, as in <b> </b>

    Kwik mini-smileys: Alt-1, Alt-2 ☺☻

  341. nickel98 says:

    Gary Pearse says:

    June 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm
    “This is the first time I’ve given any thought to the scale.”
    Back in the early 90’s I was at a science fair with my children. I thought it would be cool to make a solar system to scale. I came up with this.
    diameter in kilometers percentage of size to the sun x30 to scale incm if the sun = 30 cm
    sun 1,392,000.00 1.0000000000 30.0000000000
    mercury 4,880.00 0.0035057471 0.1051724138
    venus 12,100.00 0.0086925287 0.2607758621
    earth 12,756.00 0.0091637931 0.2749137931
    mars 6,794.00 0.0048807471 0.1464224138
    jupiter 142,984.00 0.1027183908 3.0815517241
    saturn 120,536.00 0.0865919540 2.5977586207
    uranus 51,100.00 0.0367097701 1.1012931034
    neptune 49,200.00 0.0353448276 1.0603448276
    pluto 3,200.00 0.0022988506 0.0689655172

    distance from the sun in kilometers
    0
    57,900,000
    108,200,000
    149,600,000
    227,900,000
    778,300,000
    1,429,000,000
    2,875,000,000
    4,504,000,000
    5,900,000,000

    x12 to scale in inches if the sun = 12″ diameter if the sun was 1 foot in diameter
    12.0000000000 12″
    0.0420689655 3/64″
    0.1043103448 7/64″
    0.1099655172 7/64″
    0.0585689655 <1/16"
    1.2326206897 1-1/4"
    1.0391034483 1-1/32"
    0.4405172414 7/16"
    0.4241379310 7/16"
    0.0275862069 1/32"
    How can you figure the distance? Is there a better way to calculate the size?

  342. Mac the Knife says:

    Mike,
    That is tooooo funny! You should do stand up comedy, Sir!

    Characterizing a 7 million year long late Miocene Period (from 12 million to 5 million years ago) as a “brief period” is epic understatement! Then attempting a direct comparison to the truly brief 22 year long time period between 1976 and 1998 is comedic mastery!!!! Finally, stating that we should focus on the miniscule 22 year time period as the ‘norm’ and reject the 7 million year long period as the ‘anomoly’ rises to previously unvisited satirical flight levels! I think it should be called ‘argument by abstruse absurdity’ and your picture should be shown in the dictionary, next to the term! Well Done, Sir!

    Perhaps you should add a ‘sarc’ tag to your posts though…..
    MtK

  343. Ric Werme says:

    Hmm, 155 × 0.6 = 93. Hmm….

  344. Myrrh says:

    Gail Combs says:
    June 10, 2012 at 8:13 pm
    Myrrh says:
    June 10, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Myrrh, I am glad some one understands what I am trying to say about the “well mixed” fallacy. Without it the entire house of cards falls so I can not see why everyone is defending Keeling and Mauna Loa especially when they come right out and SAY they are cherry picking. (and averaging)

    I doubt any but the youngest still untaught would confuse annual average rainfall in a region for the amount falling every day…

    But here’s where the con’s sleight of hand appears, in what’s missing, in what is taken out between statements a and c – they don’t tell you they’re averaging it and then they launch into the “well-mixed background” physics.

    So there are two sides to the tweaks here in “well-mixed”, the other side is a fisics specially created to explain the “well-mixed” by making them appear real physical properties and processes. The more confused people get the better they like it as people argue past each other, so that even those who understand it’s an average figure will buy into their ‘physics’ explanations for well-mixed. Llike Ferdinand, understanding averages but not checking the second so unaware of what they’re saying, but still thinking that their fisics is real world explanation of how it gets well-mixed and so using their terms interchangeably, as they do, he doesn’t understand how nonsensical it appears to confuse Brownian motion which applies to nanoscale to one millimetre distances with convection currents, winds, which travel at many miles per hour to dump Saharan sand on his car.

    Think about CO2:
    1. You have Volcanoes spewing CO2 through eruptions and vents
    2. You have humans producing CO2
    3. You have water dissolving or out gassing CO2 as the surface temperature changes.
    4. You have plants gobbling CO2 during the day and respiring it at night.
    5. You have termites and swamps producing more CO2 than all humans combined.

    And all you have to mix it is Brownian motion, updrafts and winds as the sources and sinks continue to change the local amount of CO2.

    But primarily, the ideal gas scenario. This is not easy to explain, I repeat, this is not easy to explain. I hope that someone who knows the difference between ideal and real will get what I’m saying and make a better job of showing the, very clever, tweaking of real physics to create this imaginary Earth’s atmosphere – which a whole generation has been taught and which is taught at uni level as I’ve explained how I was taught it.

    [Apologies for repetitions, but I've been trying to write this on and off, and I really do want someone to understand what I'm saying..]

    It is taught that the atmosphere around our Earth is actually, physically, empty space with ideal gas molecules zipping around at great speeds bouncing off each other in elastic collisions, fully according to the descriptions of ideal gas. In that there is no concept of the atmosphere around us being a fluid gas volume of great weight, a heavy ocean of gas pressing down on us in which the molecules do not zip through it at great speeds, because, the atmosphere is not empty space but full of gas, and real gas molecules are constrained by the real volumes of gas around them under gravity. That’s how we get sound, there is no sound possible in the AGWSF atmosphere of ideal gas in empty space. In the real gas atmosphere the molecules move very quickly “on the spot”, but go nowhere fast, because they comprise a real volume of gas, Air, pressing down them constraining their movement. When a sound wave passes through the sound causes them to vibrate “on the spot”, as they knock into their immediate neighbours causing them to vibrate on the spot also, the sound is passed along through the volume of air; the sound moves, the real gases don’t. Once the sound has stopped they cease vibrating and come back to ‘rest’, moving quickly on the spot going nowhere fast.

    It is critical to understand this difference in the two different scenarios of the Earth’s atmosphere. If you bear this in mind you will more readily spot when they are regurgitating the memes associated with their imaginary world which is built up of ideal gas descriptions; such as they have no gravity because ideal gas has no properties on which gravity can act, and as Barry says above “Wind and molecular energy strongly overwhelm gravity for gases in the open atmosphere.”

    His “molecular energy” refers to ideal gas molecules spontaneously diffusing into empty space under their own steam, their own molecular energy – this just doesn’t happen in real life as I’ve given the description of how sound travels. He says this overwhelms gravity – but there is no gravity in ideal gas. He actually has no idea of what he’s saying because he doesn’t know there is a difference between ideal gas, no properties an artificial construct, and real gases which have real weight which if heavier as is carbon dioxide will not rise in air under their own molecular energy, which cannot overwhelm gravity under their own steam. It takes work to move them, such as wind.

    Barry has had no reason to think about this any further, but then he must have had someone say real gas molecules don’t behave as ideal gas because he’s come back with the ubiqitous memes produced by the AGWSF department coming up with these reposts, such as “If CO2 was not well-mixed but generally sank to the ground, we’d have trouble breathing at sea level. If molecular weight mattered the gases in the open atmosphere would be seen in different layers, like a cake.”

    In AGWSF fisics, gases are not buoyant in air – because they have no air..

    This, I think, is the greater science fraud of AGW promotion, the actual destruction of real world physics basics by the introduction of a completely fictitious fisics created by tweaking real physics properties and processes, taking laws out of context and so on – those educated into thinking this fictional fisics real have no concept of the real atmosphere around us. They don’t notice they are missing the water cycle because their gases can’t separate out when lighter than air as is water vapour, and their ideal gases have no attraction so can’t combine, etc. But again the warning, there is no internal consistency in their fisics, this can’t be argued physics to physics, their fisics has to be deconstructed to show that it is deliberately created fiction – to sell AGW and to dumb down science education for the oiks.

    The PhD in physics university level, who wrote reports for the government he said, genuinely believed the ideal gas fisics he was teaching me was real world. Genuinely believed that carbon dioxide was an ideal gas. Was shocked to learn that it could pool on the ground. He’d had no reason to question what he’d been taught and what he was now teaching. I give the story here at Myrrh says:
    June 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    [As an aside, I need the window, I don't know if you've seen this re IR measurements: http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/118-thermometer-manufacturer-destroys-greenhouse-gas-warming-myth ]

    It must be recognised that there is no internally consistent physics in their imaginary atmosphere, anything they can use like Brownian motion and winds are just thrown in to confuse more because these are not possible in their empty space atmosphere of ideal gas molecules – because Brownian motion and winds relate to a real gas atmosphere where molecules have volume, attraction, weight, mass subject to gravity, which ideal gas molecules don’t have. Wind is a volume of gas on the move.

    Brownian motion is the movement of particles in a fluid volume, real gases are fluids, have volume. Ideal gas is hard dots of nothing in empty space. They don’t care that they give contradictory processes, such as “molecular energy” the reason the atmosphere well-mixed as ideal gases spontaneously diffuse at great speeds zipping through empty space bouncing off other such molecules and the nanoscale movement of particles jostled in a real volume of gas under gravity where their molecular energy is constrained keeping them on the spot and so the particles just moved locally to them. Because the name of the game is to create confusion to distract from the fake fisics as people argue talking past each other..

    So, they don’t have convection only radiation in empty space, (as in a vacuum see Spencer arguments) because their model Earth is made up of ideal gas molecules, except water vapour, in empty space without real gas volume and from this come all the ‘it can’t separate out or we’d have a layer of carbon dioxide on the bottom. This is a crucial point to understand, their basic atmosphere is an imagined empty space with ideal gas molecules zipping through it at great speeds under their own momentum; ideal gas diffusion with molecules bouncing off each other and thoroughly mixing – with no attraction and no volume subject to gravity.

    They, the creators of the AGWScienceFiction world, have taken the descriptions of basic ideal gas which is an imaginary construct, like average, of an imaginary gas in a container in a lab and created a whole atmosphere from it. Literally this what they have done. No real gas obeys the ideal gas law because the ideal gas doesn’t exist, it’s an imaginary construct useful as a first step in putting together a scenario for measurements which is done by putting back in all the stuff ideal gas doesn’t have; volume, weight, attraction gravity.

    And they mess with the history here as they do with Arrhenius when referring back to his earlier work but not his later detraction, and of course exluding that he was debunked at the time, Wood, and anyway had got the wrong end of the stick, see Timothy Casey “2.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found” on http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/ – but in a more subtle way, they don’t talk about it at all because they have so completly indoctrinated the idea that the atmosphere is ideal gas in empty space, they don’t want to bring attention to it. The basic, simplified, ideal gas law was just among the first steps in thinking about gases, very quickly seen to not work in calculations because the gas had no volume, and in stepped van der Waals:

    My italics.
    “In 1834 Emile Clapeyron recognized that the equations of Boyle-Mariotte and Charles-Gay Lussac could be combined to create an equation (equation of state) for a perfect gas PV = Ro T where Ro was a gas dependent constant. This equation linked pressure, volume and temperature. A milestone was achieved in 1845 when Victor Regnault cast Clapeyron’s perfect gas equation into ideal or “perfect” gas equation form. He did this by applying Avagadro’s hypothesis on the volume occupied by one mole of an ideal gas, i.e. PV = nRT. In the ideal gas equation n is the number of moles of gas and R is a constant called the universal gas constant which is independent of gas type. This was the final relationship required to permit generalizing (predicting) the PVT behavior of all substances that behave as ideal gases, i.e. gases at very low pressures and high temperature.”
    ..
    “Early on it was recognized that a new gas law equation was needed to account for the large discrepancies between the ideal gas equation and experimentally measured values. In other words, the new gas law equation needed to describe the behavior of real gas molecules. This direction and magnitude of deviation from ideal gas behavior is shown later in this paper for methane and hydrogen. It was later discovered that the ideal gas equation had a number of basic assumptions built into it. These assumptions are: (1) gas molecules are infinitesimal spheres that do not occupy any volume, (2) collisions between the molecules and wall are completely elastic, and (3) that [there] are no attraction or repulsion forces between gas molecules. These assumptions are not valid for real molecules at real operating conditions; nevertheless, they are useful ideas that are needed to construct proper mathematical formulations.”

    “In 1873 J.D. van der Waals proposed his idea on the continuity of the vapor and liquid states. This was followed with his work on a corresponding states theorem on the behavior of real gases. Van der Waals proposed correction terms to the Regnault ideal gas equation (PV=nRT). Van der Waals added additional terms to both the P (pressure) and V (volume) variables in the ideal gas equation. His new terms were correction terms that took into account the effect of molecular attraction forces on the pressure term, P, and took into account the size of real molecules on the volume term, V. Van der Waals idea was to simply replace P in the ideal gas equation with
    (P + a/v2) and V in the ideal gas equation with (V –b), where his new “a/v2 “ term increased the pressure so it was closer to the observed (measured) pressure, and his “b” term corrected the ideal gas volume term for the actual volume occupied by the molecules. Van der Waals new equation was a great success. It qualitatively described the PVT behavior of real fluids and significantly improved the differences between calculated volumes and measured volumes. A key feature that came from his new equation was its functional form, i.e. a cubic form. Its form provided the mathematical features that could be easily applied to determine the gas-liquid phase boundary.

    Van der Waals’ work was the first qualitatively accurate description of fluid behavior beyond the ideal gas equation.”

    “Van der Waals ideas can be found in virtually every engineering equation of state in use today. They are particularly prevalent in equations of state in the energy and chemical process industries. Many modern equations of state, including the GRI’s Detail Method in A.G.A. Report No.8, and more recent variations continue to retain van der Waals ideas through the use of component and mixture characteristic parameters. In 1910 van der Waals received the Nobel Prize in physics.”

    http://help.intellisitesuite.com/Hydrocarbon/papers/1040.pdf

    Re italics, what’s the layer of the atmosphere which has high temperatures and lots of empty space…?

    The AGWSF atmosphere is built on the descriptions of ideal gas in empty space (the very low pressure unaffected by gravity to any extent and like unrestricted real molecules at high temperatures apparently lots of empty space between them) bouncing off each other and the walls of the container in elastic collisions, before van der Waals corrections. Here in no particular order and some uncredited because standard descriptions and ways of explaining ideal gas, is a selection:

    “IDEAL AND REAL GAS LAWS
    Gases, unlike solids and liquids have indefinite shape and indefinite volume. As a result, they are subject to pressure changes, volume changes and temperature changes. Real gas behavior is actually complex. For now, let’s look at ideal Gases, since their behavior is simpler. By understanding ideal gas behavior, real gas behavior becomes more tangible

    How do we describe an ideal gas? An ideal gas has the following properties:
    1. An ideal gas is considered to be a “point mass”. A point mass is a particle so small, its mass is very nearly zero. This means an ideal gas particle has virtually no volume.

    2. Collisions between ideal Gases are “elastic”. This means that no attractive or repulsive forces are involved during collisions. Also, the kinetic energy of the gas molecules remains constant since theses interparticle forces are lacking.

    Volume and temperature are by now familiar concepts. Pressure, however, may need some explanation. Pressure is defined as a force per area. When gas molecules collide with the sides of a container, they are exerting a force over that area of the container. This gives rise to the pressure inside the container.” http://pages.towson.edu/ladon/gases.html

    “An ideal gas consists of a large number of identical molecules.
    The volume occupied by the molecules themselves is negligible compared to the volume occupied by the gas.
    The molecules obey Newton’s laws of motion, and they move in random motion.
    The molecules experience forces only during collisions; any collisions are completely elastic, and take a negligible amount of time.” http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Idealgas.html

    “What is the difference between an ideal gas and a real gas? An ideal gas does not condense to a liquid at low temperatures, does not have forces of attraction or repulsion between the particles, and is composed of particles that have no volume.” http://quizlet.com/3296832/chemistry-ch-12-study-guide-flash-cards/

    “For present purposes, the interesting thing about the Ideal Gas Law is not the behavior of Ideal Gases, but the fact that there aren’t any Ideal Gases. For an Ideal Gas, molecules are presumed to be mere mathematical points, rather than the hefty molecules occupying the real world. When these mathematical points collide, the Ideal Gas Law presumes that each collision is elastic — i.e., that each point retains all its kinetic energy rather than converting it to kinetic energy or heat. Finally, the only interactions allowed between the molecules of an Ideal Gas are collisions. No attraction or repulsion is allowed in the Ideal Gas world, just a lot of elastic bumping.
    The Ideal Gas Law is a useful tool for beginning to understand how gases work in the real world.
    Indeed, the Ideal Gas Law does pretty well as predicting the behavior of gases at low density and high temperature. Once we try to account for other characteristics of gases though, like attraction or repulsion of gas molecules, the Ideal Gas Law fails us. The simple equation PV=NRT no longer
    describes the action of gases, and our description of the action of gases in the world must become
    much more complex.” http://www.dgslaw.com/documents/articles/291561.pdf

    Now, those of you who do have the normal physics concept of the heavy voluminous ocean of fluid gas around us and pressing down a ton weight on our shoulders, the real gas medium through which sound travels as waves through the ocean where it’s not the water travelling but the wave of energy, and the real gas medium where volumes of the stuff move from temperature differences changing densities and so pressure differences, which is wind – imagine a world where none of this exists, where the atmosphere is empty of real gas, just empty space where mathematical construct hard dots speed through in random elastic collisons, bouncing off each other. Those brought up in AGWSF fisics actually picture the atmosphere as this and they don’t understand when they talk about wind or clouds, that the have no way of forming in their fisics, in their ideal gas world..

    AGWSF has taken all the properties and processes out, reduced reality to nothing, which they then pretend is real by lots of creative tweaking from real world physics and this the reason the now majority can’t understand, among lots of examples, when real world applied scientists try to explain they’re breaking the 2nd Law.

    And then there’s the AGWSF fisics which has taken out of their energy budget the real direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, and substituted shortwave from the Sun as the energy of the Sun heating land and oceans – these memes and the accompanying tweaked fisics are so ingrained now they can’t see anything wrong in this. They can’t tell the difference between heat and light because as with molecules of gas, all the properties and so related processes have first been stripped away to nothing, here that all energy is the same and all create heat.

    So there it is, they can’t understand the real atmosphere because there’s no explanation for it in their fisics and because they look at the world around us through the garbled paradigm of a specially created fiction passing itself off as real world, when it’s through the looking glass with Alice make-believe impossible. No Virginia, a colder object will not make a hotter object hotter still. In the real world no one’s manufacturing a carbon dioxide blanket to insulate my attic, or incorporating carbon dioxide into my central heating system to reduce my oil bills…

  345. AB says:

    This video shows the devastating impact infrasound from wind farms is having on communities. It was aired in early June in South Australia. It is also linked on this website exposing corrupt wind farm practices in NZ where wind farms are being consented on earthquake fault lines.

  346. clipe says:

    Could you define “obtuse…and difficult to read”1 I know my spelling is sloppy . . . in too much of a hurry most of time . . .

  347. clipe says:

    Could you define “obtuse…and difficult to read”1 I know my spelling is sloppy . . . in too much of a hurry most of time . . .</emp

  348. clipe says:

    Could you define “obtuse…and difficult to read”1 I know my spelling is sloppy . . . in too much of a hurry most of time . . .

  349. clipe says:

    test

    Could you define “obtuse…and difficult to read”1 I know my spelling is sloppy . . . in too much of a hurry most of time . . .

    test

  350. clipe says:

    test

    Could you define “obtuse…and difficult to read”1 I know my spelling is sloppy . . . in too much of a hurry most of time . . .

    test

  351. clipe says:

    test

    Could you define “obtuse…and difficult to read”1 I know my spelling is sloppy . . . in too much of a hurry most of time . . .

    test

  352. Michel says:

    Test

    If you think that doing the right for the wrong reason is right then you are wrong! Understood?

    endoftest

  353. blah says:

    Robert Smith said:

    Fine. Prove it. Show me a climate model that, in 1995, predicted the last 17 years. Not a climate model that was fixed in 2008 so that now it works — to describe the past. One that predicted the future, correctly, then.

    I’ll do you one better. How about a model in 1981 that has under-predicted observed warming: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#more-11398

  354. blah says:

    Robert Smith said:

    Fine. Prove it. Show me a climate model that, in 1995, predicted the last 17 years. Not a climate model that was fixed in 2008 so that now it works — to describe the past. One that predicted the future, correctly, then.

    I’ll do you one better. How about a model in 1981 that has under-predicted observed warming: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#more-11398

  355. blah says:

    Robert Smith said:

    Fine. Prove it. Show me a climate model that, in 1995, predicted the last 17 years. Not a climate model that was fixed in 2008 so that now it works — to describe the past. One that predicted the future, correctly, then.

    I’ll do you one better. How about a model in 1981 that has under-predicted observed warming: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#more-11398

  356. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:

    While it could reliably recreate temperatures in the Oldest Dryas — a similar cooling period about 18,000 years ago — they just couldn’t find a lever in the model that would simulate a Younger Dryas that matched the Greenland ice cores.

    Now where did I put that cold snap lever?

    Maybe that lever is not there because you never coded in the proper physics or relationships?
    No possibility that the model might not actually reproduce reality because — ahemmm it is flawed?

    Larry

  357. Luther Wu says:

    Test to find reason why I can’t post, now.

  358. Luther Wu says:

    so far so good

  359. PointsWest says:

    If the majority of the water flowed into the Arctic Ocean the cooling might be more pronounced in that region than at other proxy sites and thus account for Greenland’s greater temperature decline.

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

    Lake Agassiz’ major drainage reorganization events were of such magnitudes that they had significant impact on climate, sea level and possibly early human civilization. Major freshwater release into the Arctic Ocean is considered to disrupt oceanic circulation and cause temporary cooling. The draining of 13,000 years ago may be the cause of the Younger Dryas stadial.[1][9] The draining at 9,900-10,000 years ago may be the cause of the 8,200 yr climate event.

  360. PointsWest says:

    I can’t seem to post my rely on the particular web page Re: Chris Barncard

  361. clipe says:

    http://www2.wolframalpha.com/input/subpodimage.jsp?podtitle=Weather%20history&cdtf=MSP32141a2486cb60dd522800004ga46f0fgi6dbc17&i=toronto%20island%20airport%20weather&theme=1&plottype=Default&incframe=false&

    inctitle=false&incinput=false&mck=&spidx=1&s=5&id=MSP32131a2486cb60dd52280000581ghbf434dg5ffa&podidentifier=WeatherCharts%3AWeatherData&subtitle=Temperature&&&view=preview&zoom=s&subselection=undefined&as=null&au=null&at=null&

    [NOTE: This went no where fast. What are you trying to do? -REP]

  362. Jessie says:

    Ooh! She did it

  363. Jessie says:

    Nope. She didn’t do it.

  364. Jessie says:

    Refs…. the bold seems to be STUCK.

  365. michael hart says:

    During, and after, my time as a graduate student I often heard people deserving of great respect cautioning their research groups about the quality of the scientific literature:
    “Remember, 90% of it is speculation, exaggeration, not new, BS, or just plain wrong” summarizes the advice given. Perhaps followed by “There may be a useful nugget of information in a bad paper. That’s what you have to learn to spot.”

    In my own discipline, I often enjoyed being able to guess what title the authors of a paper would have liked to publish, if the results hadn’t been so unfavourable. That is, the experiment/project was clearly a failure, as judged by it’s original intent, but they were going to publish it any way with a different title. Somehow. Somewhere.

    The people who don’t publish bad or disappointing results end up with a thinner CV and possibly no job. Sigh.

  366. D. J. Hawkins says:

    Can I paste a graph from Excel?

    Nope.

  367. clipe says:

    NOTE: This went no where fast. What are you trying to do? -REP

    I was trying to link, absentmindedly, to Wolfram.

    http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17840119-post4.html

    The failed link was YTZ history.

  368. _Jim says:

    Test .. Bold off? (now)

  369. kramer says:

    Image test:

  370. Kforestcat says:

    I’m sure most of us are now aware that as NOAA shifts from the from the Traditional Climate Division Dataset (TCDD) to the Gridded Divisional Dataset (GrDD) that NOAA’s historical estimates for average State temperatures show a distantly downward trend in the earlier years (driving up the apparent trend to “increasing” temperatures)… Thanks to Anthony’s article “NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Caught Cooling the Past – Modern Processed Records Don’t Match Paper Records” (June 06, 2012).

    However, it doesn’t appear that most are aware that the changes also impact NOAA’s dataset for: Precipitation, the Palmer Drought Severity Index, the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index, the Modified Palmer Drought Index, the Palmer Z index; the Standard Precipitation Indexes for 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months.

    Consequently, I expect to see more of these the “climate is getting worse” stories as NOAA’s rewrites the United State’s climate “history”.

    Here’s a taste of things to come – using 1885-2009 data for the Southeast (where I live):

    The GrDD data significantly lowers the southeast’s estimated average air temperatures from 1895 thru roughly 1985. This changes the air temperature trend from decreasing with time to increasing with time… by slightly over 0.5 F from 1985-2009.

    The GrDD data also shows the southeast getting roughly 3.5 inches/year less rain from 1895 to 2009 than the TDCC data does (by eye-ball method). This changes the trend from an increasing rate of annual precipitation over time to a stagnate rate of precipitation from 1895-2009. The mean annual rainfall in the Southeast is 50.2 inches/year according to TDCC data. So this is a significant change. (Personally, I question the GrDD precipitation estimates; given NOAA’s GrDD figures would lead one to believe the Southeast’s rainfall wasn’t never accurately measured from 1885 to 2009. Due to flooding/rive managements concerns State and Federal Agencies tend to track precipitation quite closely in the Southeast).

    The GrDD data also alters the Southeast’s Palmer Drought Severity Index. From a trend showing less drought (an increasing index) to more drought… the total change is roughly full decrease of slightly over 1 Palmer Drought Index (by eye-ball method).

    For confirmation of the above see NOAA’s comparisons of the TCDD and GrDD datasets found at: http://nidis1.ncdc.noaa.gov/GHCNViewer/ (Don’t forget to check the regression line box).

    Here’s the short version: Where the historical data was showing that the Southeast was experiencing slightly decreasing temperatures, increasing precipitation, and decreasing drought. NOAA’s revised “history” paints a region plagued with increasing temperatures, stagnate precipitation, and a trend towards slightly increased drought.

    Given the above, I expect this revised “history” will be used to justify more than one “the world is coming to an end” claim.

    Incidentally… many thanks to Paul Homewood for directing us to the NOAA site above. It’s not likely I would have found the site had Paul not provided the reference. And it was only thru this reference that I was able to determine if the historical State temperature/precipitation data NOAA presents on line (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/) was TCDD or GrDD data… much less anticipate what changes to prepare for.

    [See Paul Homewood’s June 11, 2012 at 8:47 am comment to Anthony’s article “NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center caught cooling the past – modern processed records don’t match paper records”. (June 11, 2012)].

    Regards,
    Kforestcat

  371. Kforestcat says:

    I’m sure most of us are now aware that as NOAA shifts from the from the Traditional Climate Division Dataset (TCDD) to the Gridded Divisional Dataset (GrDD) that NOAA’s historical estimates for average State temperatures show a distantly downward trend in the earlier years (driving up the apparent trend to “increasing” temperatures)… Thanks to Anthony’s article “NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Caught Cooling the Past – Modern Processed Records Don’t Match Paper Records” (June 06, 2012).

    However, it doesn’t appear that most are aware that the changes also impact NOAA’s dataset for: Precipitation, the Palmer Drought Severity Index, the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index, the Modified Palmer Drought Index, the Palmer Z index; the Standard Precipitation Indexes for 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months.

    Consequently, I expect to see more of these the “climate is getting worse” stories as NOAA’s rewrites the United State’s climate “history”.

    Here’s a taste of things to come – using 1885-2009 data for the Southeast (where I live):

    – The GrDD data significantly lowers the southeast’s estimated average
    air temperatures from 1895 thru roughly 1985. This changes the
    air temperature trend from decreasing with time to increasing with
    time… by slightly over 0.5 F from 1985-2009.

    – The GrDD data also shows the southeast getting roughly
    3.5 inches/year less rain from 1895 to 2009 than the TDCC
    data does (by eye-ball method). This changes the trend from an
    increasing rate of annual precipitation over time to a stagnate rate
    of precipitation from 1895-2009. The mean annual rainfall in the
    Southeast is 50.2 inches/year according to TDCC data. So this is a
    significant change. (Personally, I question the GrDD precipitation
    estimates; given NOAA’s GrDD figures would lead one to believe the
    Southeast’s rainfall wasn’t never accurately measured from 1885 to 2009.
    Due to flooding/rive managements concerns State and Federal Agencies
    tend to track precipitation quite closely in the Southeast).

    – The GrDD data also alters the Southeast’s Palmer Drought Severity Index.
    From a trend showing less drought (an increasing index) to more drought…
    the total change is roughly full decrease of slightly over 1 Palmer Drought
    Index (by eye-ball method).

    For confirmation of the above see NOAA’s comparisons of the TCDD and GrDD datasets found at: http://nidis1.ncdc.noaa.gov/GHCNViewer/ (Don’t forget to check the regression line box).

    Here’s the short version: Where the historical data was showing that the Southeast was experiencing slightly decreasing temperatures, increasing precipitation, and decreasing drought. NOAA’s revised “history” paints a region plagued with increasing temperatures, stagnate precipitation, and a trend towards slightly increased drought.

    Given the above, I expect this revised “history” will be used to justify more than one “the world is coming to an end” claim.

    Incidentally… many thanks to Paul Homewood for directing us to the NOAA site above. It’s not likely I would have found the site had Paul not provided the reference. And it was only thru this reference that I was able to determine if the historical State temperature/precipitation data NOAA presents on line (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/) was TCDD or GrDD data… much less anticipate what changes to prepare for.

    [See Paul Homewood’s June 11, 2012 at 8:47 am comment to Anthony’s article “NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center caught cooling the past – modern processed records don’t match paper records”. (June 11, 2012)].

    Regards,
    Kforestcat

  372. Steve P says:



    Nucking Futz, Indeed!

  373. Steve P says:


    bold

    Collard greens.

  374. Steve P says:

    Collard Greens
    Collard Greens

    Collared Blues
    Collard Blues

    Colored Reds

  375. Steve P says:

    犬の世界
    inu no sekai (dog world)
    犬の世界
    犬の世界
    mondo cane

  376. Henry Clark says:

    Trying to insert an image, several different ways, since I’ve seen at least some commenters have such appear successfully:

    [img]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screenhunter_1137-may-12-16-36.jpg[/img]

    [img = http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screenhunter_1137-may-12-16-36.jpg%5D

  377. Bart says:
    July 18, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    But, change in what temperature? The data say that the rate of change of CO2 obeys an approximate relationship of this sort:

    dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)

    The same data also say that a combination of the emissions and delta T can be responsible for the observed trend ánd the observed variability around the trend. Both show a reasonable good correlation with the observations. Thus the relationship can as good be expressed as:

    dCO2/dt = k1*(emissions) + k2*dT/dt

    There are two driving forces at work: the emissions and temperature. Both have their influence. In your formula the emissions have negligible influence, even if these are twice the observed increase in the atmosphere. In my formula, both have an influence, but temperature changes mainly on the variability and emissions mainly on the trend.

    But let’s have a look at the other observations. As anyway, the result of both approximations must obey the observations. All of them.

    – The mass balance.
    In all cases the mass balance must be obeyed. No matter can be destroyed or created. Thus the 8 GtC of the emissions must go somewhere. We have quite good measurements of what happens in the atmosphere, the ocean surface and the biosphere. We have little knowledge about what happens with the deep ocean exchanges, but all together, some 2 GtC must be absorbed in a “missing sink”. A lot of sinks do exist for CO2, but most are too slow (e.g. rock weathering), the deep oceans are the most likely sink place.
    That means that the ultimate balance of the deep oceans – atmosphere exchange is negative: 2 GtC more sink than source, increasing from ~0.8 GtC in 1960 to ~2 GtC today and a variability in overall sink capacity of +/- 2 GtC/year, be it near always more sink than source over the past 50 years.

    – The 13C/12C balance.
    The biosphere is a net sink for CO2, thus preferentially 12CO2, thus relatively enriches the atmosphere in 13CO2. Thus that is not the cause of the d13C decline.
    The oceans are higher in d13C, as good in the deep oceans as in the surface, than the atmosphere. Thus any substantial extra release of ocean CO2 would increase the d13C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a d13C drop in the atmosphere as well as in the ocean surface, including the upwelling places, in exact ratio with human emissions.

    Your approximation doesn’t fulfill both requirements: even if all human CO2 (including the observed increase in the atmosphere, minus the uptake by biosphere and ocean surface) of nowadays 6 GtC/year is absorbed in the deep oceans, then the 4 GtC extra emissions from the deep oceans to the atmosphere still show an unbalance of 2 GtC more sink than source. Thus the deep oceans are a net sink for CO2, not a source. Moreover, the d13C decline shows that the oceans can’t be the source of the increase in the atmosphere.

    BTW, your reasoning doesn’t hold for the continuous emissions in a closed tank:

    The cold water will heat up to match the ambient temperature, so it will release CO2 to the air proportional to the temperature change T-To. The CO2 in the air filled portion now becomes

    CO2(1) = CO2(0) + h*(dV/V)*(T-To)

    When you add a portion of colder water, the pCO2 in the atmosphere of the tank would decrease with the average temperature and get again at the pressure of pCO2 and the old volume of CO2 when T is reached again. Thus at the same temperature as before, there is no net gain of CO2 anymore, as the pCO2 of both water and atmosphere are in equilibrium, no matter how much new water is heated.

    It may hold in open air, as there is no equilibrium at all at the upwelling places, but that is as good the case for the downwelling places and the mass balance shows a 2 GtC deficit for the deep oceans…

  378. Bart says:
    July 19, 2012 at 9:34 am

    You are leaving out an important part of what you are doing:
    dCO2/dt = k1*(emissions) + k2*dT/dt – trend(dT/dt)

    As already said on another occasion, I have detrended dT/dt. That introduces an error over the 45 year time span 1960-2005, where the average temperature increase is 0.4°C. Over time periods of 50 years to millennia, that gives a change of ~6 ppmv. For the 1960-2005 period that gives an error of ~0.1 ppmv per year in the rate of change. Hardly detectable.

    Thus what I have done is bypassing the medium frequency response, which in my opinion is inbetween the high frequency response of 4-5 ppmv/°C and the very low frequency response which is ~8 ppmv/°C. Your model medium frequency response is around 100 ppmv/°C…

    You also do not appear to be giving full disclosure of what you are doing to manipulate this data. The numerical derivatives of T are very noisy, so you must be filtering them heavily somehow.

    As already said in the first message where the trend was shown: I did plot the 12-month moving average of the calculated CO2 levels, as that removes the noise and removes the seasonal changes in temperature, emissions (which are only known as yearly values, I used simple linear interpolation for the monthly emissions) and CO2 levels. I first plotted the three noisy monthly changes, but that is simply a mess where you can’t see the wood for the trees in the noise. The averaging gives a 6-month lag in the plot, compared to the two other series. If you take that into account, the correlation with the observations is slightly better than your calculation…
    But I will make a plot where all three are made with 12-month moving averages, as that gives a better insight of the real changes, without the distracting noise.

    Now, you are truly violating mass balance. The cold water brought more CO2 in. When the temperature equilibrates to the same as the ambient, that added CO2 cannot disappear.

    Now you are violating Henry’s Law: the moment you introduce colder water, the average temperature drops, including at the surface, thus some of the CO2 from the above atmosphere is lost in the colder water. When everything is back to the previous temperature, the same pCO2 in water and air is again at equilibrium, thus the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is back. Nothing more and nothing less for the same temperature and air volume (and water composition).

    And I don’t think we will ever agree about mass balances and d13C impossibilities. Simple logic is not the same as simplistic…

  379. clipe says:

    someone forgot

  380. wobble says:

    Yes, they’ve kept this video on youtube despite threats from Mann.

  381. michael hart says:

    Christopher Chantrill says:
    July 30, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    “They still refuse to get out of the office.”

    Well, they are bureaucrats, after all. Field work is for the interns.

    Test.

  382. michael hart says:

    mytext

    moremytext

  383. michael hart says:

    mytextwhysoboldtextonthetestpage

  384. This post is several days late and dollars short, I’ll put it in the record anyway.

    Here is a suggestion for an analysis experiment to test whether the Time of Observation (TOB) is a significant confounder of the station siting observations recorded in Watt’s “beta” draft paper that is the subject of this thread. The primary objective here is emphasizing that uncertainty in warming trend, i.e. the uncertainty in the slope m of y=mx+b , is going to lead to unrealistically small uncertainties if the stats are based upon the un-measured, calculated T(ave) and not based primarily on the measured T(min) and T(max).

    Currently, each of the stations used in the study are segmented in the dimensions: Region and Leroy-2010 Station Class (as interpreted by the sufacestations.org team.. The issue of whether TOBS confounds the results means we need some simple way to segment a TOB dimension for each station.

    My suggestion is as follows:
    Take the time period of the study and break it up into three sub-periods.
    It could be 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.
    Or 40%, 20%, 40%
    Or even 50%, 0%, 50%.
    The only requirements are that the 1st and 3rd periods be of equal length and be at least 1/3 of the record.

    With each of these sub periods, determine whether the times of observations are primarily AM or PM. Let’s set the divider at 1 PM. If the TOB is after 1PM, it is a PM reading, prior to 1PM, it is an AM reading. In each subset, determine whether the count is more AM or PM. Label that subset “A” or “P”.

    Using the 1st and 3rd subsets, segment the TOBS dimension as either
    “AA” – Station was mostly AM reading throughout the period.
    “AP” – Station switched from AM to PM readings over the study period.
    “PA” – Station switched from PM to AM readings over the study period.
    “PP” – Station was PM reading mostly throughout the period.
    We are analyzing slope and uncertainty of slope of a linear regression and the beginning and ending regions of the period have greater weight to estimating slope. I feel the status of the central sub-period is not important to test the hypotheses.

    IF TOBS is a significant element of bias to the raw, unadjusted, temperature trends, then we should confirm the following hypotheses.
    1. “AA” and “PP” segments should have an insignificant difference in slope [see next point.}
    2. “AP” segments should have a statistically sig. greater slope than all others.
    3. “PA” segments should have a statistically sig. lesser slope than all others.

    This issue of the significantly significant difference in slope is one I wrote about two days ago upthread. What I concluded in that post is to fit a set of temperature readings to a y=mx+b regression:
    1. You can use the T(ave) (raw) in the calculation of the uncertainty of slope as a very conservative, underestimate of that uncertainty. Let’s call that S_a(m), std dev based upon T(ave).
    2. If two slopes fit within that uncertainty bands, then there is no reason to suggest they represent two different populations.
    3. But if two slopes are different by more than S_a(m) can justify, you CANNOT yet conclude the populations are different. This is because the uncertainty in the calculation of T(ave) is assumed to be zero when in fact is quite large.
    4. You can also use the T(min)-T(base) and T(max)-T(base) as the points used in determining the slope and uncertainty of slope, which we will call S_m(m) for std dev based upon max and min point. You ought to get the same slope as in 1, but the uncertainty of the slope better reflects the real uncertainty since T(min) and T(max) are the actual measurements. S_m(m) >> S_a(m).
    5. I say “better reflects” uncertainty than S_a(m), but I recognize that it is probably an over estimate since the T(min) and T(max) are not randomly sampled points during the day but are outlier temperatures.
    6. If two slopes are different by more than S_m(m), then the segments come from two different populations and the TOB is vital to the analysis.
    7. I expect what will happen is that the difference of slopes will show a significant difference based upon S_a(m), so we cannot conclude they are the same populations, but the differences will be insignificant based upon S_m(m), so we should not conclude the populations are different. This leads into an area were we cannot yet conclude either.
    8. If we find ourselves in the situation of 7, I would propose that we create some additional pseudorandom temperature samples. We have T(min), T(max). We create T(ave_1) = (T(max) + T(min previous))/2.
    T(ave_2) =(T(max) + T(min next))/2
    In one sense, instead of sampling at 90 and 270 degrees in the cycle (max and min) we sample at 0, 90, 180, 270 points in the daily cycle. Another way of looking at it is that the T(ave_1) and T(ave_2) are real temperatures, the sampling error is WHEN during the day they happen, uncertainty in x-dimension of a couple hours in a 30 year time series. I think we could live with that. Then do the slope and uncertainty analysis using
    T(min)-T(base),T(max) -T(base),T(ave_1) -T(base), T(ave_2) -T(base). Calculate the uncertainty of the slope S_4(m) based upon the four “readings” during each day. We should be S_m(m) > S_4(m) >> S_a(m).

  385. Joe Born says:

    Willis Eschenbach: ”As you point out, volcanoes are not a cyclical phenomenon … but they are an approximately half-wave driving cycle, so we can use the same relationship.”

    I appreciate your taking the time to convey your reasoning. Despite that valiant effort, however, I haven’t yet gotten my mind around how you are able to treat the volcanic eruption as though it were cyclical. So I looked at the issue the way a layman (such as yours truly) would:

    Suppose we have a stimulus of the form
    x = e^{-t/\tau_1} l
    applied to a system whose response to a unit step is:
    $latex\lambda \left( 1-e^{-t/\tau_2} \right), $
    i.e., to a system whose equilibrium output in response to a unity-step input is \lambda.
    We know that such a system’s response to the exponentially decaying input is given by
    y= \frac{\lambda / \tau_2}{1/\tau_2 - 1/\tau_1}(e^{-t/\tau_1}- e^{-t/\tau_2}),
    which tells us that for a stimulus that falls to half its initial value in two years (and thus has a time constant of 2.9 years), as Muller surmises, the system’s response reaches 89\% of its unit-step equilibrium value if the system’s response to a one-year-period sinusoid has a 0.86-month lag (and therefore a time constant of 0.077 year), as you’ve found to be typical of land locations. If the system’s time constant is ten years, on the other hand–a proposition for which I’ve seen no compelling evidence—the response to that exponentially decaying stimulus would reach only 17\% of its equilibrium value. In short, my naive approach tends to support your view if your assumption about the speed of the earth’s response is correct.
    The foregoing analysis obviously assumes a single-pole, lumped-parameter system, not the distributed-parameter system on which your equation is based. I have allowed myself to believe that the code accompanying my post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/13/of-simple-models-seasonal-lags-and-tautochrones/ can be used to determine such a system’s response, but I haven’t taken the time to go through that exercise.

  386. Joe Born says:

    Willis Eschenbach: “As you point out, volcanoes are not a cyclical phenomenon … but they are an approximately half-wave driving cycle, so we can use the same relationship.”

    I appreciate your taking the time to convey your reasoning. Despite that valiant effort, however, I haven’t yet gotten my mind around how you are able to treat the volcanic eruption as though it were cyclical. So I looked at the issue the way a layman (such as yours truly) would:

    Suppose we have a stimulus of the form
    x = e^{-t/\tau_1}
    applied to a system whose response to a unit step is:
    $latex\ lambda \left( 1-e^{-t/\tau_2} \right) $,
    i.e., to a system whose equilibrium output in response to a unity-step input is \lambda.

    We know that such a system’s response to the exponentially decaying input is given by
    y= \frac{\lambda / \tau_2}{1/\tau_2 - 1/\tau_1}(e^{-t/\tau_1}- e^{-t/\tau_2}) ,
    which tells us that for a stimulus that falls to half its initial value in two years (and thus has a time constant of 2.9 years), as Muller surmises, the system’s response reaches 89\% of its unit-step equilibrium value if the system’s response to a one-year-period sinusoid has a 0.86-month lag (and therefore a time constant of 0.077 year), as you’ve found to be typical of land locations. If the system’s time constant is ten years, on the other hand–a proposition for which I’ve seen no compelling evidence—the response to that exponentially decaying stimulus would reach only 17\% of its equilibrium value.

    In short, my naive approach tends to support your view if your assumption about the speed of the earth’s response is correct.

    The foregoing analysis obviously assumes a single-pole, lumped-parameter system, not the distributed-parameter system on which your equation is based. I have allowed myself to believe that the code accompanying my post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/13/of-simple-models-seasonal-lags-and-tautochrones/ can be used to determine such a system’s response, but I haven’t taken the time to go through that exercise.

  387. Joe Born says:

    Willis Eschenbach: “As you point out, volcanoes are not a cyclical phenomenon … but they are an approximately half-wave driving cycle, so we can use the same relationship.”

    I appreciate your taking the time to convey your reasoning. Despite that valiant effort, however, I haven’t yet gotten my mind around how you are able to treat the volcanic eruption as though it were cyclical. So I looked at the issue the way a layman (such as yours truly) would:
    Suppose we have a stimulus of the form
    x = e^{-t/\tau_1}
    applied to a system whose response to a unit step is:
    $latex\ lambda \left( 1-e^{-t/\tau_2} \right) $,
    i.e., to a system whose equilibrium output in response to a unity-step input is \lambda.
    We know that such a system’s response to the exponentially decaying input is given by
    y= \frac{\lambda / \tau_2}{1/\tau_2 - 1/\tau_1}(e^{-t/\tau_1}- e^{-t/\tau_2}) ,
    which tells us that for a stimulus that falls to half its initial value in two years (and thus has a time constant of 2.9 years), as Muller surmises, the system’s response reaches 89% of its unit-step equilibrium value if the system’s response to a one-year-period sinusoid has a 0.86-month lag (and therefore a time constant of 0.077 year), as you’ve found to be typical of land locations. If the system’s time constant is ten years, on the other hand–a proposition for which I’ve seen no compelling evidence—the response to that exponentially decaying stimulus would reach only 17% of its equilibrium value. In short, my naive approach tends to support your view if your assumption about the speed of the earth’s response is correct.
    The foregoing analysis obviously assumes a single-pole, lumped-parameter system, not the distributed-parameter system on which your equation is based. I have allowed myself to believe that the code accompanying my post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/13/of-simple-models-seasonal-lags-and-tautochrones/ can be used to determine such a system’s response, but I haven’t taken the time to go through that exercise.

    [Delete second ? Robt]

  388. Joe Born says:

    Willis Eschenbach: “As you point out, volcanoes are not a cyclical phenomenon … but they are an approximately half-wave driving cycle, so we can use the same relationship.”

    I appreciate your taking the time to convey your reasoning. Despite that valiant effort, however, I haven’t yet gotten my mind around how you are able to treat the volcanic eruption as though it were cyclical. So I looked at the issue the way a layman (such as yours truly) would:
    Suppose we have a stimulus of the form
    x = e^{-t/\tau_1}
    applied to a system whose response to a unit step is:
    \lambda \left( 1-e^{-t/\tau_2} \right) ,
    i.e., to a system whose equilibrium output in response to a unity-step input is \lambda.
    We know that such a system’s response to the exponentially decaying input is given by
    y= \frac{\lambda / \tau_2}{1/\tau_2 - 1/\tau_1}(e^{-t/\tau_1}- e^{-t/\tau_2}) ,
    which tells us that for a stimulus that falls to half its initial value in two years (and thus has a time constant of 2.9 years), as Muller surmises, the system’s response reaches 89% of its unit-step equilibrium value if the system’s response to a one-year-period sinusoid has a 0.86-month lag (and therefore a time constant of 0.077 year), as you’ve found to be typical of land locations. If the system’s time constant is ten years, on the other hand–a proposition for which I’ve seen no compelling evidence—the response to that exponentially decaying stimulus would reach only 17% of its equilibrium value. In short, my naive approach tends to support your view if your assumption about the speed of the earth’s response is correct.
    The foregoing analysis obviously assumes a single-pole, lumped-parameter system, not the distributed-parameter system on which your equation is based. I have allowed myself to believe that the code accompanying my post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/13/of-simple-models-seasonal-lags-and-tautochrones/ can be used to determine such a system’s response, but I haven’t taken the time to go through that exercise.

    [Dupe entry. Delete first? Robt]

  389. David Ross says:

    Newspeak Warmingspeak Warmingspeak was the official language of Oceania the famous “97% of climate scientists” and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc the IPCC…

  390. bobm says:

    Or how about this little gem from page 3:

    In general the classification of records as urban or rural is fairly close to reality as the writer knows it from viewing most of the sites

    Wow! That should inspire some confidence. No wonder this ‘paper’ never got published.

  391. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Abdussamatov used and depended on the flawed PMOD for his extrapolation. It is good to see that you agree.

    If the ACRIM results are more true than PMOD (something I would have difficulty quickly absolutely verifying as a outside observer but already strongly suspect in context), TSI increase would have extra contributed to the natural component of warming up through part of the 1990s (leaving still less gap to be ascribed to anthropogenic causes after taking into account the 60-year ocean cycle, temperature data not wrongly adjusted, and all else). Yet, even while ACRIM data, unlike PMOD, shows a relatively substantial rise in TSI between the 1986 and 1996 solar minimums, ACRIM *also* actually then depicts a greater fall in TSI between the 1996 and 2008 solar minimums than PMOD does. The preceding for the difference between ACRIM and PMOD data is seen by comparing and contrasting http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig26.jpg for ACRIM versus http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig27.jpg for PMOD.

    I doubt you will really like the preceding chain of observations at all, but I think you momentarily slipped into being more focused on aiming to score debate points, in a manner of speaking, than thinking of what would be the consequences if ACRIM is more accurate than PMOD.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you respond saying the ACRIM-depicted rise and decline in TSI of the different minimums is due to errors in ACRIM. Proving the exact quantitative magnitude of errors negate the existence of the preceding would be a separate matter than showing errors exist, though (when, with real-world instruments, there are always non-zero complexities of measurement, like as far back as the 1980s the ACRIM1 science team was applying corrections for degradation mentioned in http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/acrim.jpg ).

    Though obviously you are going to have to argue otherwise, ACRIM data showing a rise in minima up to the minima ending cycle 22 (before the later fall) would even help explain why cycle 22 has 1.032x of the average inverted cosmic ray neutron count of cycle 20, like cycle 21 also had 1.032x, despite the nominal borderline decrease in peak sunspot number count, by fitting having the minima rise increase the average in itself in a manner compensating for a little lower sunspot-count peak.

    If using ACRIM data more or less, Dr. Abdussamatov would be off in the exact location of the overall peak in solar activity, but I’d be more concerned about the general picture. In that regard, with ACRIM showing a greater fall in TSI in the recent minimum than PMOD did (and the likelihood of that being solely measurement error looking still less), such would be a bit like the remark I made way back on August 14th:

    *******************
    Dr. Abdussamatov has some weaknesses, like he uses a common temperature dataset (unfortunately fudged by the CAGW movement) in one of the figures (rather than http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43034_ScreenHunter_296_Apr._08_09.29_122_441lo.jpg plus http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg and other data discussed before … which would support his observations … more).
    *******************

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Your paranoid comments about trust are just silly and need no further arguments.

    After severe dishonesty on 20th-century temperature history (Hansen, GISS, etc.), the MWP and other millennial-scale temperature history (Mann, etc.), sea level rise rates, arctic ice history, hurricanes, tornadoes, AGW effects on malaria, et cetera, widely not apologized for but in practice condoned, the inescapable conclusion is that, while the majority of all people are honest, such does not extend to the majority of activists who rise to the top of institutions gravitating to them. The preceding does not directly prove anything on another topic (as in TSI measurement) but discourages being automatically unable to consider other than 0% probability of a little number massaging by anyone, when there is means, motive, and practically nil chance of serious negative repercussions for responsible parties if applicable, if done with almost any care at all. As the saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” — except I don’t know a saying for “fool me ?? times in a row”

    In context, I’ll take being called paranoid as a compliment, which is an exact word I’ve been called by CAGW supporters on another site (the run-of-the-mill type who could argue on all AGW-related topics without blowing their cover since having none), as I would also if, as there, called a conspiracy theorist. With that said, conspiracy is not the right term when conspiracy connotates a movement which collapses if publicly exposed much at all, with the instability of true conspiracies making them rare in the real world, whereas the CAGW movement has proven quite able to survive many dissenters. It represents not a conspiracy in sense of centralized organization but rather the natural inclinations of the majority of individuals flocking into the relevant organizations at this point, a little like Greenpeace spreading utter inaccuracy about nuclear power is not a conspiracy but the natural inclination of the majority of individuals who would join Greenpeace in the first place (for that subset is not identical in makeup to the general population, being by now more predominately the type not bothered by Greenpeace’s past inaccuracies and thus still wanting to join).

  392. HClark says:

    Test2

  393. H Clark says:

    Quick test. i u

  394. Henry Clark says:

    Final

    test

    .

  395. jorgekafkazar says:

    One of the saddest things about the AGW hoax is the extent to which the media have conspired to…oops…cooperated with the Lysenkoists to spread the propaganda.

  396. jorgekafkazar says:

    conspired to…oops…cooperated with

  397. clipe says:


    .PREV DISCUSSION... /ISSUED 1127 AM CDT SUN AUG 26 2012/

    ...CENTRAL/SRN FL...
    LATEST NHC TRACK FORECAST MOVES THE CENTER OF ISAAC ACROSS THE LOWER
    FL KEYS THIS AFTERNOON AND WNWWD INTO THE ERN GULF OF MEXICO
    TONIGHT. SATELLITE AND RADAR IMAGERY SHOW A SERIES OF CONVECTIVE
    BANDS MOVING WNWWD ACROSS CENTRAL/SRN FL. THERE HAS BEEN WEAK
    ROTATION INDICATED IN SEVERAL CELLS APPROACHING THE SERN FL
    COAST...AND BANDS TO THE NORTH HAVE DISPLAYED OCCASIONAL LEWP
    STRUCTURES. VISIBLE SATELLITE ALSO SHOWS SOME THINNING OF CLOUDS
    BETWEEN ADJACENT BANDS WHICH MAY PERMIT LOCALIZED ZONES OF STRONGER
    DIABATIC HEATING AND DESTABILIZATION. 12Z AREA RAOBS AND CURRENT
    VAD WIND PROFILES AT KMFL AND KBYX INDICATE 45-50 KT WINDS IN THE
    LOWEST 1-2 KM AGL WHICH IS RESULTING IN STRONG LOW LEVEL SHEAR/SRH
    IN THE LOWEST 1 KM OF 35 KT/250 M2/S2 RESPECTIVELY...WHICH WILL
    PROMOTE SMALL SUPERCELLS EMBEDDED WITHIN THE CONVECTIVE BANDS. A
    FEW TORNADOES WILL BE POSSIBLE THIS AFTERNOON INTO
    TONIGHT...ESPECIALLY IN ASSOCIATION WITH ANY PERSISTENT SUPERCELLS
    THAT DEVELOP.

  398. oldfossil says:

    Looks like someone left the bold on.

    [Thanks, fixed. It's a WordPress software glitch that pops up occasionally. ~dbs, mod.]

  399. Chuck Nolan says:

    8°C This is italicized text.

  400. FerdiEgb says:

    Several have linked to the 13C/12C ratio articles of Roy Spencer, but forget to look at the discussion there. My reaction at that time starts here.

    The change in 13C/12C ratio is not proof that human CO2 is the cause of the CO2 increase, but it adds to the evidence. More important, it excludes the oceans as main source. That is where Dr. Spencer and others are wrong. The 13C/12C ratio of the (surface and deep) oceans is higher than of the atmosphere, thus any substantial contribution of the oceans would increase the atmospheric d13C/12C ratio, but we see a continuous and accellerating decline, completely in ratio with the human emissions.

    As the other probable source of low d13C, vegetation decay is surpassed by additional vegetation growth, the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2 and preferably 12CO2, thus leaving more 13CO2 in the atmosphere, thus not the cause of the d13C decline either.

    Most of all other inorganic CO2 sources like volcanic releases, carbon rock weathering, etc. are higher in d13C than the atmosphere, thus not the source of the d13C decline.

    That leaves only human emissions as the only source of the decline.

    As Richard Courtney said, the decrease of d13C in the atmosphere is only 1/3rd of what may be expected from the releases from fossil fuel burning. That is true, but one may not forget that the current atmospheric composition in part sinks near the poles, but what is upwelling has about the composition of the sinks many centuries ago, thus at a higher d13C level. It is possible to estimate the deep ocean exchanges, based on this d13C “thinning”:

  401. Richard Patton says:

    Let’s see if this works

  402. Richard Patton says:

    Obviously putting in an image doesn’t work

  403. Richard Patton says:

    Try it this way:

  404. Henry Clark says:

    ——— Testing here to not accidentally spam regular thread, to check whether the lack of display of such as incoming to mod review was from forgetting to turn javascript back on again or usage of the word paranoia in passing (which presumably would just cause temporary delay) ——–

    Smokey:

    I’m too busy this weekend in real life to really get involved in this thread for long, but, just as some quick notes, including explaining how the following relates to looking up solar activity history:

    You may happen to recall the recent sea ice thread we both were in at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/

    Normally not meaning to inappropriately boast but just as such a perfect illustration in this case, observe the webcitation record and graph of http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo posted first by me as comment #3 in the thread which you used later too. As the webcitation archive proves, I guessed *in advance* on August 31st that something so politically inconvenient would be deleted from the U.K. scientific website (even though I didn’t know it would be deleted quite so soon as to be within several days later); my superficial paranoia works because it is based on experience.

    I know from your posts that you are a true skeptic too and often far from naive either, so that’s good.

    However, now to give an example demonstration of certain cross-checking methods and then how similar can be applied to solar activity history:

    As was implied in that thread, the increasingly accepted (in the recent political climate) reconstruction of the most widely publicized source (Cryosphere Today) utterly flattened pre-1950s arctic sea ice history as in
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png , but one could cross-check versus a combination of:

    (1) Russian sources — without the same Western environmental movement’s increasingly high dominance in recent years — such as http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig2.gif and others described more at http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm

    (2) Anything published anywhere prior to the rise of the CAGW movement, back when accidental errors could occur but not the huge intentional errors systematically each in the same direction afterwards

    For example, the Cryosphere Today dishonest pre-1950s trend line absurdly contrasts to what is seen in:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/

    and

    (3) Cross-checking versus other data for what is most plausible:

    For instance, while the Cryosphere Today graph would indirectly encourage a CAGW-convenient narrative of implying pre-1950s temperatures were flat, that overall false picture is hardly encouraged by how global sea level rise was slower in the latter half of the 20th century than the first half: “1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003″ versus “2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953″ ( http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml ).

    Considering experience elsewhere like Hansen and Mann on flattening pre-late-20th-century temperature reconstructions, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a superficial qualitative scientific excuse for error correction or adjustments, “coincidentally” happening to only attack errors inconvenient to CAGW rather than ever any others, yet snuck in fudging more subtly on the magnitude of the specific quantitative numerical adjustments. Whatever the method, the net result utterly and drastically failed the #1, #2, #3 cross-verification there as can be seen by comparing the prior graphs.

    With that example in mind, for determining solar activity history (or the history of any major quantity of billion-dollar-significance in the global warming political war), a semi-similar approach may be followed:

    For solar activity history:

    (1) Even simply google such as: solar reconstruction LIA site:.ru while not forgetting the site:.ru … which will still find results in English, and look at result after result including the most recently published ones.

    (2) Among other examples, look under appropriate sections at http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/subject_s.php where part of a paper’s title can be placed in quotes and searched for with the word PDF added to often find online. Look at what Carbon-14 as well as Be-10 reconstructions show — such as the discussion of solar activity and cosmic ray history in http://rjes.wdcb.ru/v06/tje04163/tje04163.htm

    (3) Cross-compare versus other data including the trend in recorded auroras and where they occur in latitude now versus during the Maunder minimum, demonstrative of solar activity increase over the past couple centuries since the LIA and the effect on GCRs and clouds.

    See http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf by Dr. Feynman et al. of JPL (possibly a recognizable name), http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005A&G….46d..31H (alternate backup version of link: http://tinyurl.com/9pu6946 ) — and really other sources too, but I’m aiming to rapidly finish up this already-lengthy post.

    You’ve probably encountered before the propaganda being pushed by CAGW proponents everywhere of claiming cloud cover trends in the past several years went the opposite direction of what cosmic ray theory would imply, but always look at the source of any cloud cover trend chart, as even those on climate4you.com are based on inaccurate data from the ISCCP headquartered at Hansen’s GISS. Like the Cryosphere Today “data”, the situation is not that such data is well-funded and widely distributed in “public education” *despite* its falseness but rather *because* of its very convenient falseness. Read http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ on the “accidentally” uncorrected error from change in ISCCP satellite viewing angle occuring then, including the graph showing other cloud cover trend datasets going the opposite direction then. The latter are what do not blatantly contradict the picture suggested by albedo trends ( http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png ). Hansen’s GISS (and the ISCCP headquartered at it) is a compromised untrustworthy source in general; a quick smoking gun illustration with temperatures is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif versus http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif where the former shows shows the 5-year mean of U.S. temperature in the high point of the 1980s was 0.4 degrees Celsius cooler than such in the 1930s but the latter is fudged to make the same less than 0.1 degrees Celsius apart. When people happily flock to employment at such an institution’s climate departments even now and rise to the top in the current political climate, fitting in, to expect them to be unbiased would be like expecting Greenpeace leadership to be unbiased.

    Such is part of a series of orchestrated dishonest tricks trying to publicly discredit any effect of cosmic rays on clouds at all cost:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs

    http://www.sciencebits.com/HUdebate

    and so on

    I did a simple quick illustration myself of solar/GCR activity versus high-altitude specific humidity illustrating the matching four corresponding peaks each in data over the 1960s through now:

    The top is from:

    The bottom is from:

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

    Someone could rather claim there is nil solar/GCR effect and just strange coincidences with volcanoes every last single time in a row or other BS, but it is beautiful how much more relatively consistent data gets (particularly for effects of solar-GCR variation on top of ocean cycles, with some effects rapid and some with a longer tail of time lag with regard to the depths of the oceans) once one realizes when to discard false propaganda from untrustworthy sources.

    As illustrated at http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend , global temperatures have been relatively flat to declining overall since the 1998 El Nino, which followed the rise in solar activity in relative inverted average cosmic ray counts from solar cycle 20 -> 21 -> 22 of 1.00 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 before solar activity decline after the cycle ending in 1996 (even though this is meanwhile near the peak of the 60-year ocean cycle as could be guessed even from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif although a lengthy FAO report was exceptionally illustrative).

  405. David Ross says:

    I would like to point out some parallels between Lewandowsky’s work and “post-normal science”, which was discussed in this href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/>thread.

  406. David Ross says:

    I would like to point out some parallels between Lewandowsky’s work and “post-normal science”, which was discussed in this thread.

  407. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Just testing this link before I put in a comment:

  408. David Ross says:

    Out of this work are emerging creative community-based campaigns banning corporate assaults, and challenging hundreds of years of ‘well-bred’ law, legal theory and constitutional doctrines that have made We the People into zombies of the body politic.
    Richard L. Grossman, one-time executive director of Greenpeace USA and guru to the Occupy movement.

    http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/Richard_Grossman.php

  409. John Whitman says:

    Moderators,

    Just testing how to put my just born website into my comment login. Thanks for your patience.

    John

  410. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Another test of comment login link to my website.

  411. RobertInAz says:

    This is my attempt at a discourse analysis of the comments in the WUWT article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/
    My goal was to focus on the following assertions in Ms. Hollender’s analysis of that thread in her Sept 11, 2012 talk as documented here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/a-review-of-the-seminar-the-contrarian-discourse-in-the-blogosphere-what-are-blogs-good-for-anyway/
    – Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace
    – Plans to disrupt and intervene in her presentation were posted
    – About 250 [comments] have nothing to do with her talk
    – She experienced extensive misunderstanding of certain terms and notions “science as ideology, “avowals of distrust, “linguistic performances.”

    She cited 476 comments in her talk.

    Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace
    I scored 12 comments as personal attacks on Ms. Hollender. This is 2.5% of the total. Because of the negativity associated with personal attacks, I would give Ms. Hollender a pass on this assertion. Commonplace synonyms include usual (false) and everyday (true). The antonyms are exceptional, infrequent, rare, and unusual. In this context, IMHO, 2.5% is too high and is uncivil. How will we get young social scientists to participate if we are uncivil to them and consistently attack their chosen discipline (and note that the attacks on the discipline where not scored as personal attacks even though they are ad homonym attacks) . To that extent, I find her assertion: “There are very few dissenting comments on WUWT, and if so, they are viciously attacked.” to be distressingly true.
    I scored personal attacks as those focused personally on the author. I did not score attacks on sociology as a science, post normal science, or science as an ideology as personal attacks. Example of personal attack scoring follow. In what follows, I an using a DD:HHMM notation to identify comment time where HH is 00-23.
    No: davidmhoffer 01:1026. “What complete arrogance surpasses only by their self imposed ignorance.” This was almost a yes but it is really a comment about an attitude and not Ms. Hollender.
    No:eyesonu 01:1144 “It’s a Saturday afternoon and my 2 beer response would be: Get on your knees and worship the intellectual superiority of the contrarian skeptics and ask for forgiveness for your ignorance.” Tongue in cheek and clever.
    No: Ross: 01:1225 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/#comment-1069421. Actually a very nice post but someone who is thin skinned might deem it a personal attack.
    Yes: otsar: 01:1226. All examples of Reducto ad Hitlerum were scored as personal attacks. Not so for comments relating post modern science to Marxism.
    Yes: Bull: 01:2222 “If you educate an idiot all you get is an educated idiot not a clever person”. This was scored as a personal attack and off-topic.
    Yes: Gallun 01:2308 “This is girl thinks stringing big words together makes her look smart…”; “She will get it — and I bet they will give this bimbo a MacArthur Genius Grant also.” Gallun also gets credit for “This little girl has a peanut for a brain.” At 02:0113 Sad because the posts otherwise have content.
    No: Selkov 01:2330 “What a drivel. That blurb could have been computer-generated, just like post-modern philosophy, and nobody would be able to tell the difference.” This comment is focused on the content, not the person.
    No: Gallon: 02: “Is she writing in fluent bollocks? I’m having a hard time decyphering that last paragraph”
    No: First 02:0759 “It’s extremely depressing that such people are employed by institutes of learning”.
    Yes: Jeff: 02:0927 “ – has the insufferable Ms. Hollender …”

    Plans to disrupt or intervene in her presentation were posted.

    I found zero instances. I did see comments about attending. Then there was this term of art that might just be a language misunderstanding: 01:1353: “Methinks Dr. Hollander is in urgent need of a deprogramming intervention …” This was scored as a personal attack but not a threat to intervene in the talk. The term disrupt did not appear in the thread. The Zoloft comment mentioned in the next sentence was scored as a personal attack but not as a threat.

    About 250 [comments] have nothing to do with her talk

    I scored 15 comments as off topic including the clearly marked as OT thread on sea ice. A couple of the off topic comments were whimsical. I think that to get to 250, Ms. Hollender had to score the extensive discussion on post normal science as off-topic. I scored every comment even vaguely related to the abstract as on-topic.
    She experienced extensive misunderstanding of certain terms and notions “science as ideology, “avowals of distrust, “linguistic performances.”
    The intent of this assertion is not clear. I added this section because I am in the group who cannot parse the term “avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic performances of accountability…”. The discussion related to this phrase focused primarily on the consequence: “forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.“ OTOH, I found the science as ideology discussion to be useful and would argue that it is a point in favor of the blog.

    Finally
    RockyRoad was prescient when he asked:
    September 2, 2012 at 2:12 am

    I wonder if she’ll include this thread of comments in her study. Will that skew the results? Will we see chaos in her conclusion? Or after considering such scathing rebukes of PNS, will she drop the project altogether?
    Time will tell.

  412. RobertInAz says:

    This is my attempt at a discourse analysis of the comments in the WUWT article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/
    My goal was to focus on the following assertions in Ms. Hollender’s analysis of that thread in her Sept 11, 2012 talk as documented here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/a-review-of-the-seminar-the-contrarian-discourse-in-the-blogosphere-what-are-blogs-good-for-anyway/
    – Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace
    – Plans to disrupt and intervene in her presentation were posted
    – About 250 [comments] have nothing to do with her talk
    – She experienced extensive misunderstanding of certain terms and notions “science as ideology, “avowals of distrust, “linguistic performances.”
    She cited 476 comments in her talk.
    Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace

  413. Proud Parrot says:

    There is Fluoride in the tap water

  414. Christian Bultmann says:

  415. clipe says:

    test

    testing

  416. RHS says:

    Henry P, we’re going to need a better resource regarding the Chernobyl workers. I found 56 employee’s and residents died as a result to direct exposure with the radioactive materials, and some died from being hit with debris and fire. Around 600,000 people were in contact with radioactive material; 4000 of them died from radiacvtive-related cancer.
    About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident, have resulted from the accident’s contamination and at least nine children died of thyroid cancer; however the survival rate among such cancer victims, judging from experience in Belarus, has been almost 99%.
    Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels. As a consequence, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure.
    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happened_to_Chernobyl_employees#ixzz28Frz7EqJ

    This is considerably different than stating the 300 workers involved in the encapsulation died. Way too cherry picked of a number. You’re trying to indicate everyone involved died. No such luck. The same is true stating the country cannot pay for the clean up. The Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union during the disaster, and the Soviet Union chose not to pay for clean up. Rather, it was cheaper to abandon the town.
    Was Chernobyl terrible? Yes. As bad the cherry picked numbers indicate? No.
    Also, Chernobyl was a bureaucratic mistake in that someone who was not knowledgeable or experienced tried to play scientist.
    Germany made a pledge to stop but has had to change that pledge since Wind and Solar aren’t so reliable.
    Go sell alarmism somewhere else, we’re all stocked up on crazy here.

  417. RHS says:

    Henry P, we’re going to need a better resource regarding the Chernobyl workers. I found

    56 employee’s and residents died as a result to direct exposure with the radioactive materials, and some died from being hit with debris and fire. Around 600,000 people were in contact with radioactive material; 4000 of them died from radiacvtive-related cancer.
    About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident, have resulted from the accident’s contamination and at least nine children died of thyroid cancer; however the survival rate among such cancer victims, judging from experience in Belarus, has been almost 99%.
    Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels. As a consequence, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happened_to_Chernobyl_employees#ixzz28Frz7EqJ

    This is considerably different than stating the 300 workers involved in the encapsulation died. Way too cherry picked of a number. You’re trying to indicate everyone involved died. No such luck. The same is true stating the country cannot pay for the clean up. The Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union during the disaster, and the Soviet Union chose not to pay for clean up. Rather, it was cheaper to abandon the town.
    Was Chernobyl terrible? Yes. As bad the cherry picked numbers indicate? No.
    Also, Chernobyl was a bureaucratic mistake in that someone who was not knowledgeable or experienced tried to play scientist.
    Germany made a pledge to stop but has had to change that pledge since Wind and Solar aren’t so reliable.
    Go sell alarmism somewhere else, we’re all stocked up on crazy here.

  418. cui bono says:

    Bah! Fail. How do I post a photo? I put it on an image website. Let’s try:

    [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Aatja.jpg[/IMG]

    [Reply: you can't post an image, only a link. And this site doesn't use BB code. Use HTML. — mod.]

  419. NeedleFactory says:

    Aren’t sloshings different from waves? As I recall, water molecules move up and down (and in vertically oriented circles as

  420. DaveA says:

    That’s easy to sort out. The crew at SkS have a little trick to deal with misbehaving MWPs; see what they did to Ljungqvist’s last effort.

  421. michael hart says:

    superscript 185

  422. michael hart says:

    To be fair, the editorial got quite a long way before betraying itself in the usual manner with:

    “Often, simply increasing public knowledge about an issue will not move the debate, as seen with embryonic stem cell research.”

    This appears to be suggesting that the science is actually of secondary importance to some other end, as in ‘the end justifies the means’.

    The next sentence confirms this:

    “Instead, the way an issue is framed can have a larger effect on people’s views.”

    So. Framing. In other words, ask the right questions to get the answer that you want. DO NOT mention anything that might lead the reader to consider both sides of an argument. Every politician worth his or her salt knows this.

    Next sentence:

    “As a case in point, many people will give more credit to the scientific claims about climate change when the issue is cast as a technological challenge than as a regulatory problem.”

    This is an excellent example of political framing. The writer has goes straight to the issues of how we can physically mitigate this [non-existent] problem, and what laws must be made to acheive the goal of fixing this [non-existent] problem. The possibility that the science may NOT be settled is ignored completely. It is simply not up for discussion in the author’s mind. And it appears he doesn’t want it in the mind of the reader either.

    Those are three astonishing sentences from the head of an organization claiming to be an Association of Americans for the Advancement of Science.

  423. michael hart says:

    “Parkinson said that the fact that some areas of the Southern Ocean are cooling and producing more sea ice does not disprove a warming climate.”

    Another attempt at “re-framing” à-la-Trenberth. Not just attempting to reverse the normal order of disproving the null-hypothesis, as should be used when the scientific method is applied correctly, but subtly trying to imply that skeptics are claiming something they are not?

    The issue is that the modelers have not really got a clue about WHY these two, apparently contradictory, observations occur. There is one thing that they get spot-on though, and all the carefully chosen superlatives hedged-around with “could”s, “possible”s, and “can”s, cannot disguise it:

    “…something more complex is happening.”

  424. Gras Albert says:

    Then completely out of left field came a decisive revelation from “The Cancer Letter”, a weekly newsletter that is sort of like a blog. In his CV, Dr Potti had falsely claimed to be a “Rhodes Scholar (Australia)” – a claim refuted at The Cancer Letter.

    Although this misrepresentation did not bear on the dispute itself, it was the sort of thing that the academic community could dig its teeth into and Potti’s data manipulation began to unravel. Dr Nevens, Potti’s senior and coauthor at Duke, finally withdrew his support. The articles (published at the most eminent journals) were subsequently retracted.

    On his web site Michael Mann states he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007 and his ‘complaint’ filed October 22, 2012, against CEI & Mark Steyn states As a result of this research, Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

    It appears that no less an authority than Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, The Norwegian Nobel Institute has responded

    1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
    3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

    It would appear that the IPCC/Rajendra Pachauri took their Nobel diploma, added the supplementary text and sent a copy exclusively, to some 2,000 AR4 contributors…

    Is this not the sort of thing that the academic community could dig its teeth into?, it’s certainly reminiscent of Mann’s proxy practise

  425. michael hart says:

    Blackswhitewash says:
    October 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Michael Mann strikes me as a person who has a mental illness.

    Many environmentalists display symptoms similar to the so called “Münchhausen Syndrome by Proxy” [A compulsion to regularly diagnose, and even more regularly exaggerate, sickness and death of "Gaia/Mother Earth"?]. And yet it is skeptics who have recently been the subject of some notoriously poor mental ‘research’ as a result of singing from the wrong hymn-sheet. That’s a triple serving of irony, if ever there was one.

    I suspect even at the IPCC there might be a few people who would bury their head in a newspaper if they saw Mann getting on the same bus or train. I doubt if many IPCC authors travel long distances much on Greyhound Coaches, but if they did, they might meet a few other people who claim to been awarded a Nobel Prize of some flavour.

    At the back of the bus they might also meet someone like Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet.

  426. Gras Albert says:

    The IPCC produced it and sent out similar certificate to 2000 named contributors. I wonder what the Nobel guys think of the IPCC’s actions

  427. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Just testing that I got some links in a potential comment right.

    – – – – – –

    Timing of 4 paleo papers suspicious to even the non-cynical.

    In the month of October 2102 three papers published showing adverse results versus the AR3 and AR4 endorsed Hockey Stick papers by Mann.

    Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/

    Esper et al in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/

    ‘Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data’ by Thomas M Melvin, Håkan Grudd and Keith R Briffa in the the journal ‘Holocene’ http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

    The deadline for submission of papers for potential inclusion to AR5 was July 31 2012.

    I assume they were not in the FOD or the SOD? If so is it because they were too late? Is there anecdotal evidence by those involved in authoring the papers of any unusual delays or unusual processes imposed by the journals wrt the reviews and acceptance of those papers that caused them to miss the AR5 deadline for paper submittal?

    I contrast the above questions with the CA post on the problematic and unusual circumstances involved in the IPCC keeping the research of Gergis et al (that has results favorable to the results of Mann’s hockey stick papers which AR3 and AR4 endorsed) alive even though there is prima fascia evidence that it missed the July 31 deadline. http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/22/ipcc-check-kites-gergis/#more-17121

    John

  428. michael hart says:

    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    John A says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm
    If the BBC were to call me up, I’d put the phone down. I’d do the same with Fox News, and for the same reasons.

    Why? Disabusing people of their prejudice and preconception involves talking to them. Gently does it.

    Quite right, though I doubt I could be as reasonable under the same circumstances. Hearing BBC presenters on the radio, I sometimes get the impression that they are genuinely trying harder to be sensible about the matter, but simply have little clue about who/where to get-the-other-side of a “science-story.”

    Actually employing more people (some?) with Science Ph.D. s to talk or write about science doesn’t seem to have gained much currency yet at the BBC. They ought to be offering TallBloke a job.

  429. Rick says:

    Test
    “http://physics.aps.org/story/v7/st14″

  430. John Whitman says:

    testing a link to Clint Eastwood’s ‘Limiations’ line . . .

    John

  431. David Ross says:

    Test

    TomBowman.com, Oct. 6, 2012
    Along with other scientists Michael Mann jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  432. David Ross says:

    Test

    TomBowman.com, Oct. 6, 2012
    Along with other scientists Michael Mann jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  433. David Ross says:

    EcoReport, WFHB, April 26, 2012
    In today’s feature report, Nobel Prize winning scientist Michael Mann speaks about the dirty tactics petroleum-industry front groups use to deny the reality of global warming.

  434. Gunga Din says:

    I wonder if I can do this? THIS!

  435. Gunga Din says:

    Gunga Din says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    November 5, 2012 at 8:55 pm
    I wonder if I can do this? THIS!

    =============================
    I guess not. 8-(
    (I tried to change the color of my text.)

  436. michael hart says:

    “Global temperature data can be adjusted…”

    We know.

    What SHOULD be adjusted is Figure 1. They forgot to mention that it is drawn to give naive readers the impression that El Nino events were being forecast from 1980, which is not true. This is just one more hind-cast.

    At least those people claiming to forecast flu-season from weather-models are trying to do something useful (though we haven’t actually got a forecast out of them either).

  437. Can we agree that ‘denier’ is a pejorative in a scientific sense. (a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle)?

    A ‘skeptic’ might not disbelieve in Global Warming; rather they are not ready to believe Global Warming is all Anthropogenic much less Catastrophic.

    Let’s examine your point: (thefreedictionary)
    Skeptic: — “One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.” To me, that sounds pejorative enough.

    Alarmist: A person who …alarm others, as by … exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe

    How about alternatives that might be a better choice:
    “Proponent” — you jest! They are certainly not PROponents of CAGW. They are not in favor of it.
    “Catastrophists” — those who predict catastrophe. That might fit some, but goes too far for most. I don’t think it will or should catch on.
    Warner – Someone who gives a warning to others
    Warmer – Someone who give a warning of warming.
    Tipper – Someone who believes we are near a tipping point and “in bed” with Al Gore.
    Scaremonger,
    Conspirator, (see Climategate).
    Zealot
    Flimflamer
    beguiler

    I think “Alarmist” is the best of the bunch.
    At this time there are two other terms that ought to be put on the table:
    Chicken Little — a panicky innocent who lead his fiends straight to
    Foxy Loxy and were never seen again. Re Gail Combs: 8:04 am It has never ever been about the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries. It has ALWAYS been about redistributing wealth from the middle class to the upper class.

    Speaking of Gail, I’d classify here as Astute

  438. Mark Ro says:

    Just checking

  439. @Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen 09:55
    RE: solar thermal power plant Puerto Errado 2
    It does involve storage; a half hour’s worth.
    Size of plant: 300000 m^2 = 74.1 acres
    Annual Gen: 50 million KwH/yr
    2190 solar hrs/year
    Gen per Solar hr: 22.8 MW each solar Hr
    Power density per Solar hr: 310 KW(solar)/acre 6 hrs/day; zero KW 18 hr/day

    raw solar density: 1 KW(Peak)/m2 = 4 MW(peak)/acre
    Plant Efficiency (solar hour): 7.6%
    Tarriff (first 25 yrs) 0.269 Eur/kwh
    Plant Turbine Capacity Net: 30 MW
    Carbon Offset: 16,000 tons annually
    tarrif per Carbon Offset ton: 840.6 Euro/C-ton
    Cost 160 M Euro

    Compare to:
    Pampa Wind project (4GW) 10 KW(Nameplate)/acre, with 99+% farmland still used.
    Keck Solar 2 tower: 71 KW peak/acre
    And other base costs per kw from:
    Table 8.2
    EIA Electricity Market Module, such as $3,300/kw for Adv Nuclear, $620/kw for Adv Cumbustion Turbine

  440. I want to draw people’s attention to the frequency content of VPmK SAW2 and SAW3 wave forms. Just by eye-ball, these appear to be 75 year and 50 year frequencies. As Mike Jonas points out that early in the paper VP posits they come from major natural ocean oscillations but later a more flexible “whatever its origins.”

    I am not going to debate the origins of the low frequency. I want read that in VPmK the temperature record contains significant very low frequency wave forms, wavelengths greater than 25 years, needed to match even heavily filtered temperatures records where

    three box filters being used to remove all of the “22-year and 11-year solar cycles and all faster phenomena“.

    All that is left in VPmK data is very low frequency content and there appears to be a lot of it.

    My comment below takes what is important to VP and focuses on BEST: Berkley Earth and what to me appears to be unrecognized or minimally discussed wholesale decimation and counterfeiting of low frequency information happening within the BEST process. If you look at what is going on in the BEST process from the Fourier domain, there seems to me to be major losses of critical information content. I have brought this issue up before in several places.
    I stated my theoretical objection to the BEST scalpel back in April 2, 2011 in “Expect the BEST, plan for the worst.” Another one at Climate Audit, Nov. 1, 2011

    My argument summary remains unchanged after 20 months:
    1. The Natural climate and Global Warming (GW) signals are extremely low frequency, less than a cycle per decade. VPmK agrees with this.
    2. A fundamental theorem of Fourier analysis is frequency resolution dw/2π Hz = 1/(N*dt) .where dt is the sample time and N*dt is the total length of the digitized signal.
    3. The GW climate signal, therefore, is found in the very lowest frequencies, low multiples of dw, which can only come from the longest time series.
    4. Any scalpel technique destroys the lowest frequencies in the original data.
    5. Suture techniques recreate long term digital signals from the short splices.
    6. Sutured signals have in them very low frequency data, low frequencies which could NOT exist in the splices. Therefore the low frequencies, the most important stuff for the climate analysis, must be derived totally from the suture and the surgeon wielding it. From where comes the low-frequency original data to control the results of the analysis ?

    Have I misunderstood the BEST process? Consider this from Muller (WSJ Eur 10/20/2011)

    Many of the records were short in duration, … statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one.

     “Simply sliced the data.” “Avoided data-selection bias” – and by the theorems of Fourier embraced high frequency selection bias and created a bias against low frequencies. There is no free lunch here. Look at what is happening in the Fourier Domain. You are throwing a way signal and keeping the noise. How can you possibly be improving signal/noise ratio?
     
    Somehow BEST takes all these fragments lacking low frequency, and “glues” them back together to present a graph of temperatures from 1750 to 2010. That graph has low frequency data – but from where did it come? The low frequencies are counterfeit – contamination in the gluing process, manufacturing what appears to be low frequency signal from fitting high frequency data.
     
    A beautiful example of frequency content that I expect to be found in century scale uncut temperature records is found in Lui-2011 Fig. 2. In China there are no hocky sticks The grey area on the left of the Fig. 2 chart is the area of low frequency, the climate signal. In the Lui study, a lot of the power is in that grey area. It is this portion of the spectrum that BEST’s scalpel removes! Fig. 4 of Lui-2011 is a great illustration of what happens to a signal as you add first the lowest frequency and successively add higher frequencies.
     
    Power vs Phase & Frequency is the dual formulation of Amplitude vs Time. There is a one to one correspondence. If you apply a filter to eliminate low frequencies in the Fourier Domain, and a scalpel does that, where does it ever come back? If there is a process in the Berkley glue that preserves low frequency from the original data, what is it? And were is the peer-review discussion of its validity?

    If there is no preservation of the low frequencies the scalpel removes, results from BEST might predict the weather, but not explain climate.

  441. John West says:
    Table         1990	2011	21 years	Rate	period
    GISS	0.29	0.44	0.15	0.007143	per year
    NCDC	0.27	0.4	0.13	0.00619	per year
    HadCrut4	0.29	0.4	0.11	0.005238	per year
    Crut4LE:	0.37	0.31	-0.06	-0.00286	per year
    Crut4HE:	0.21	0.5	0.29	0.01381	per year
    
  442. Lance of BC says:

    test

  443. curly says:

    X⁽¹⁺¹⁼³⁾

  444. curly says:

    testing code block tags (unformatted??) and superscript: X⁽⁾ⁱ⁺ⁿ should produce the following superscript formatting: X⁽⁾ⁱ⁺ⁿ

    For more Unicode code points and their decimal (and hex) character encoding, see this link

  445. curly says:

    Testing code block which is hopefully unformatted so we can see how superscript works using Unicode code points, decimal encoded: X⁽¹⁺¹⁼³⁾
    should produce: X⁽¹⁺¹⁼³⁾

    Link here for more code points and encodings: http://symbolcodes.tlt.psu.edu/bylanguage/mathchart.html#super

  446. curly says:

    fooie. nope. the code block tag still translates decimal-encoded code points… let’s try encoding the ampersand…
    X⁽¹⁺¹⁼³⁾
    should produce: X⁽¹⁺¹⁼³⁾

    [That worked. Mod]

  447. curly says:

    nope again. WP seems determined to translate even character entity refs that encode the ampersand. Let’s try spaces around the ampersand and “number sign” (hash) characters.

    X & # 8317 ; & # 185; & # 8314; & # 185; & # 8316; & # 179; & # 8318;

  448. curly says:

    Moderator, apologies for the comment spam.

  449. David Ross says:

    This is another test

  450. John Whitman says:

    Moderators,

    doing some html tag checks before posting in a live thread.

    —————–

    Bruckner8 says:
    January 7, 2013 at 8:24 am

    Sorry John, I never said *humans* require belief; I said atheism and theism require belief. Us humans on the agnostic side have neither belief, because, darnit, we just don’t know, lol. You’re convinced there’s no theism, yet you have no proof. If you have no proof, you’re left with belief.
    You KNOW there’s no theism…and yet you accuse me of using a priori knowledge. Good one!

    – – – – – – – –

    Bruckner8,

    Hey, thank you for maintaining engagement on the dialog contrasting science and religion’s supernaturalism / superstitionism.

    If a person does not know something, then a person by reason can simply say so and do their best in that situation, then pursue getting more scientific knowledge. Belief / faith is a choice some make in that situation, but it is not a metaphysically / epistemological requirement that a person must make a belief or have faith.

    I think my below comment that I just sent to Christopher Monckton covers your comment.

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    January 7, 2013 at 10:02 am

    The Professor also says atheism is not a religion. Well, in the sense that it is a system of belief that is not capable of Popper-falsification, that is exactly what it is.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    Christopher Monckton,

    Of course in the theological (theology being the field studying the profound belief in supernaturalism and superstition) terminology both theist and atheist endorsed belief/faith as an essential epistemology/metaphysically process. That is the way with the profound belief in the supernatural / superstition that religion is. Both terms are rigged to a dependence on belief/faith But, step outside that biased, or ”supernatural / superstitious’ paradigm.

    When you take that step, then I think rgbatduke is correct. When a one has naturally achieved, by one’s natural capacity of reason, a metaphysical/epistemological system that has determined that to live a life of reason then one by necessity must exclusively exercise one’s natural free volition to exclusively use man’s natural capacity for reason exclusively on the natural world then one does not even reject religion’s supernaturalism / superstitionism . . . one then has achieved the capability to say religion’s supernaturalism and superstitionism is irrelevant to their metaphysical / epistemological system. Aristotle came reasonably close, but not completely. We stand on his mighty shoulders. : )

    I am very happy that in your last two posts you have stimulated an important dialog on a large stage that can philosophically compare science to religion’s supernaturalism/superstitioinism. I look forward to your next post that will again tee up this excellent philosophical contrast between science and religion’s supernaturalism / superstitionism. Thank you.

    NOTE: Next step one can show that one’s ethics and morality as a reasoning being are a natural logical extension of one’s natural knowledge of oneself. One does not depend on the acceptance of religion’s supernaturalist / superstitionist based morals and ethics. Likewise for politics and aesthetics.

    John

    John

  451. John Whitman says:

    Moderators,

    just another html tag test before I post this comment on a live thread.

    ——————-

    Centers for Disease Control says:
    January 6, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    John Whitman says:
    January 6, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Please explain the source of your omniscience claim that everyman profoundly believes in or has faith in the supernatural.

    Omniscience is not required, just simple logic.
    Does life exist? I only see the effects of it. If I could see you, I might find you breathing. Do love, peace, joy exist? One thousand other, invisible, “super-natural” things enjoyed by people all over the world and throughout the ages.
    Dismissal of the supernatural has not got to be a very satisfying way to live your life. Appreciation is a better place to start. Give it a try. The only thing you’ll give up is arrogance, a worthwhile sacrifice.

    Centers for Disease Control,

    Thank you for your comment.

    I am not dismissing people who endorse religion’s supernaturalism / superstitionism. It is what it is by their free volitional choices. I am discussing its fundamental aspects and comparing them to the fundamental aspects science.

    Also, I think I have fully addressed your comment in the following two comments I just posted. Let me know if I have not fully addressed your thoughts.

    John Whitman says on January 7, 2013 at 11:44 am to Christopher Monckton

    John Whitman says onJanuary 7, 2013 at 11:44 am to Bruckner8

    John

  452. John Whitman says:

    moderators,

    I blew the tags in my last test,

    testing again.

    ———————-

    Centers for Disease Control says:
    January 6, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    John Whitman says:
    January 6, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Please explain the source of your omniscience claim that everyman profoundly believes in or has faith in the supernatural.

    Omniscience is not required, just simple logic.
    Does life exist? I only see the effects of it. If I could see you, I might find you breathing. Do love, peace, joy exist? One thousand other, invisible, “super-natural” things enjoyed by people all over the world and throughout the ages.
    Dismissal of the supernatural has not got to be a very satisfying way to live your life. Appreciation is a better place to start. Give it a try. The only thing you’ll give up is arrogance, a worthwhile sacrifice.

    Centers for Disease Control,

    Thank you for your comment.

    I am not dismissing people who endorse religion’s supernaturalism / superstitionism. It is what it is by their free volitional choices. I am discussing its fundamental aspects and comparing them to the fundamental aspects science.

    Also, I think I have fully addressed your comment in the following two comments I just posted. Let me know if I have not fully addressed your thoughts.

    John Whitman says on January 7, 2013 at 11:44 am to Christopher Monckton

    John Whitman says onJanuary 7, 2013 at 11:44 am to Bruckner8

    John

  453. John Whitman says:

    Moderators

    testing html tags again before I post in a live thread

    ———————

    Volker Doormann says:
    January 7, 2013 at 11:17 am

    John Whitman says:
    January 6, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    Christopher Monckton, In an earlier comment to you on this thread I addressed almost total agreement on the secular part of your post. Your secular focused discourse was eloquent. The religious (supernatural) focused part of your post lacks internally consistent logic and it misidentifies the metaphysical/epistemological status of supernaturalism. However, your most self-refuting aspect of your religious statement is that it is merely irrelevant to professional and objective scientific pursuit and achievement, per se.

    Sorry, but that is not a valid argument, because you have not given any (scientific) reason for your statement. If one speaks on logic he knows that logic cannot be more than the prepositions say. If one speaks about absolute truth, what is the reference for it? From where do know that something is absolutely true (or false)? Can you give a proof what is supernatural? Can you show truth?
    Basic logic tells that there is one nature; two natures cannot exist because they must contradict each other. Things cannot be true and false at the same time und not natural and supernatural at the same time. It is a fallacy.
    Science is science because of the acknowledgement to that what is to be recognised as true.
    V.

    – – – – – – – –

    Volker Doormann,

    Thank you for your comment.

    I agree substantially with the fundamentals of your comment.

    Yes, I now think that term ‘secular’ was a poor word choice. Also, by religion’s focus on supernatural / superstitious beings or realms, I am not endorsing their view that they exist. If my statement implies that I maintain there are two worlds, let me say now that I did not mean to endorse two worlds; I am not a Platonist nor Kantian nor Hegelian who did maintain a dual reality metaphysics and epistemology. By my statements I was contrasting the natural world focused on by science to what is the focus/target of religion’s supernaturalism / superstitionism.

    I have expanded my thoughts farther in two recent posts. Maybe they will address any other points in your comment.

    John Whitman says on January 7, 2013 at 11:44 am to Christopher Monckton

    John Whitman says on January 7, 2013 at 11:44 am to Bruckner8

    John

  454. Mr Lynn says:

    Bob Ryan says:
    January 8, 2013 at 5:06 am
    A very telling phrase: ”Climate is the average of the weather….’. But, that is not what climate scientists like Slingo believe. For them ‘climate drives weather’. This is the inversion of thought which distinguishes the traditional meteorological paradigm from that of the (new) climate scientist. The former is informed by a straightforward empiricist view of the world – the latter by a form of rationalism based upon the Platonic concept that there are certain ideal and immutable laws (in this case the laws of radiation physics and thermodynamics) from which the future of the climate can be deduced and modelled. The problem is that these methodological paradigms are quite incommensurable and the debate between the two sides is like ships passing in the night. For Slingo what is observed is the servant of theory and quoting Feynman or Popper will not make the slightest bit of difference. Slingo isn’t pretending she knows why it has been wet – she really, really believes she knows.

    A fascinating observation, this difference in ‘methodological paradigms’ explains how ostensibly intelligent scientists can become intractably wedded to an overarching belief (where ‘belief’ is the right word) in the rightness of the Climatist ’cause’ (cf. Climategate II) and the utter irrelevance of the contrary evidence and arguments propounded by ‘deniers’.

    It is easy enough to deride the Climatists as ‘true believers’ (viz. Eric Hoffer), but hard to understand how real scientists, buried in data-intensive research, can latch onto glib and easily falsifiable conclusions, simply on the strength of one idee fixé, namely the theoretical ability of one trace gas to ‘trap’ heat in the atmosphere. I have always assumed it was a result of ideological blinders, an overriding desire to right the wrongs of Western civilization and cure the ills wrought by mankind on the Planet. But that seemed an implausible leap of faith for real scientists to make. Bob Ryan has perhaps shown how the more thoughtful among the Climatists may rationalize that leap philosophically, by turning empirical science on its head.

    /Mr Lynn

  455. michael hart says:

    We do, in fact, have all the tools, assets and knowledge to avoid the collapse of drone, drone, drone…

    WE have the knowledge, Charlie-boy, but you clearly don’t. WE are the assets, and WE no longer regard ouselves as your tool-kit. YOU are the tool. A complete and utter tool. A tool amongst tools. A tool for all seasons.

    And, by-the-way, you don’t even have any grandchildren yet, unless there’s some Fitz-Tool you haven’t yet owned up to.

  456. Keith Minto says:

    Just reinstalling CA assist and correcting my email address.

  457. Paul Martin says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Anything else you want to reveal about yourself before we
    ignore you and move on?

    Shame on you, Willis! I thought we didn’t go in for
    ad hominems here. Just because someone can’t express himself
    fluently shouldn’t mean his point should be ignored. The sad truth is that
    he may be right in that a snappy explanation at a simpler than high school
    level may be needed for the general public to notice, and that itself is a
    sad indictment of the dumbed down, soundbite seeking, British media.

  458. Geoff Shorten says:

    An article by Tom Harris and Tim Ball from Johannesburg’s Business Day. Note the typical ad hominem rich, argument free comments from a couple of people.

  459. clipe says:

    journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281953%29010%3C0244%3AOTCOIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

  460. michael hart says:

    myboldword

  461. Keith Minto says:

    Test says:
    January 24, 2013 at 5:57 pm

  462. Keith Minto says:

    I am testing if I can ‘Insert quote’ (blockquote) with a persons name and the date provided by WP, and have the date highlighted as in the original comment, this does not seem to work as per above. This would facilitate jumping to the original comment faster, especially in a long thread.
    Mods, any thoughts on this ?
    Keith.

  463. Gunga Din says:

    Test > <

  464. oldfossil says:

    Zones 01 and 18 (latitudes 81 – 90) 7 4 1.95

    Zones 01 and 18 (latitudes 81 - 90) 7 4 1.95

  465. Steve P says:

    TEST
    —>2 attempts to post this comment here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/27/waste-heat-a-bigger-climate-effect-than-once-thought/#comment-1211921;

    both seem to have gone down the rabbit hole<—

    Lady Life Grows says:
    January 27, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    Warming would be GOOD. We need to harp on that reality a whole lot more.

    Quite right!

    The bogus argument that warmer conditions are worse for humans (than cooler conditions) is the sine qua non of the entire CAGW scam.

    However, with so many overweight and obese Americans, it probably hasn’t been a tough sell to convince people that its just “too darn hot.”

    In my experience, many of these portly folks are always too hot, and prefer the proverbial “meat locker” conditions. As a result, many businesses are cooled to a degree I find very uncomfortable after about 20 minutes. (Disclaimer: I ride a bike, and I’m thin, with a BMI around 21. Your view, and weight, may vary)

    [Your posts were in the spam folder. I posted one of them now. — mod.]

  466. Steve P says:

    Some hiccup in the system; both “missing” posts now awaiting moderation here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/27/waste-heat-a-bigger-climate-effect-than-once-thought/#comment-1211921

    Sorry for my impatience. Time, bandwidth limited these days.

    Reply: Well, looks like that comment is not stuck anywhere. I suspect someone is just being too impatient… -ModE]

  467. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Just testing a tinypic link

  468. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Testing various versions of a tinypic link

    [IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/fn5iz5.jpg[/IMG]

    http://tinypic.com/r/fn5iz5/6

    http://tinypic.com/r/fn5iz5/6

  469. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Another tinypic link test

  470. Mark Bofill says:

    Okay. This is a testthis is ONLY a test
    this ought to be in italics
    right?

  471. Mark Bofill says:

    hmm.

    this ought to be a blockquote

  472. Roger says:

    Magnificent site. Plenty of useful information here. I’m sending it to several buddies ans also sharing in delicious. And of course, thank you on your effort!

  473. So if this actually works, people will believe I’m more internet savvy?

  474. BruceC says:

    Test only
    Stanford Uni:

    “In December 2002, four sponsors – ExxonMobil, GE, Schlumberger, and Toyota – helped launch GCEP at Stanford University with plans to invest $225 million over a decade or more. These four global companies have collectively committed over $150 million towards GCEP so far. In September 2011, DuPont joined the Project as its newest corporate sponsor.”

    Stanford University

  475. BruceC says:

    2nd test
    Stanford Uni:

    “In December 2002, four sponsors – ExxonMobil, GE, Schlumberger, and Toyota – helped launch GCEP at Stanford University with plans to invest $225 million over a decade or more. These four global companies have collectively committed over $150 million towards GCEP so far. In September 2011, DuPont joined the Project as its newest corporate sponsor.”

    Stanford University

  476. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Testing a comment with many HTML tags:

    – – – – –

    Rick on February 20, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Without mentioning any names of course, sometimes when I read a comment heavily larded and over wrought with words; [ . . . ]

    – – – – – – –

    Rick,

    The Gibert & Sullivan quite was fun.

    Here are a couple more quotes about fools from other sources:

    From Samual Clemens ( aka Mark Twain):

    ” The trouble ain’t that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain’t distributed right.”

    from Mark Twain, as quoted in Deduction : Introductory Symbolic Logic (2002) by Daniel A. Bonevac, p. 56

    From Shakespeare:

    The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

    William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act v. Sc. 1 (1599 or 1600)

    From Aeschylus:

    It is a profitable thing, if one is wise, to seem foolish.

    Aeschylus, in Prometheus Bound (c. 478 BC), as translated by David Grene

    From Douglas Adams:

    A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

    Douglas Adams in Mostly Harmless (1992)

    Note: all of the above quotes taken from: http://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fools#section_1

    John

  477. tckev says:

    Test
    bold test
    italics test
    Bold &amp italics? test

  478. tckev says:

    &
    °
    ⁰¹²³⁴

  479. Mark Bofill says:

    hmm. Is this bold? in a blockquote?

  480. ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

    Test

  481. DaveA says:

    It’s 2013.

    Where is the Preview button???

  482. Gras Albert says:

    more soylent green!

    Does anybody have an overlay that shows sea surface temperature and HadCRUT, GissTemp, and others? I’d like to see how the data compares over time.

    NIck Stokes

    Here is one. You can add or remove data as you wish.

    Sorry, link got messed there. Hope this works

    MSG, it’s amazing what Nick’s tool can show

  483. tckev says:

    test
    &cr

  484. tckev says:

    Retest
    You need to upgrade your software to the all new MannSoft® SpreadsheitAround© to do the MannMath®. It makes divide by zero easy, and the all new Hansenizer™ add-in means you can draw the plot before generating the data (just like the professionals).

    “MannSoft, because you always know what you’re going to get.”

  485. tckev says:

    again
    Steve you need to upgrade your software to the all new MannSoft® SpreadsheitAround© to do the MannMath®. It makes divide by zero easy, and the all new Hansenizer™ add-in means you can draw the plot before generating the data (just like the professionals).

    MannSoft because you always know what you’re going to get.”
    ;-)

  486. Tester says:

    Test. Sometimes I get the sense that my comment has just disappeared. Sometimes it has, sometimes it is just delayed by the moderation queue. Maybe sometimes the moderators don’t like it. A message to say something like. OK, got it, waiting for moderation now. Would be appreciated.

  487. Tester says:

    Got just that right there! But it doesn’t seem to always happen. Esp. if I return, find I am still logged in (using WordPress), and then do a comment. Sigh, sigh.

  488. tckev says:

    Yet Another test -
    Get your office to use the newly peer review approved Spreadsheet software –
    New MannSoft® SpreadsheitAround© to do the MannMath®. It makes perpetual interpolation for regression fitting easy. And the all new Hansenizer™ add-in means you can draw the plot before generating the data (just like the professionals).

    MannSoft with Gia-safe Security because you always know what you’re going to get.”

  489. R Emilson says:

    Paul

    G/god.

    Premises
    1.
    2.

  490. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    pre-testing a long comment with many html tags.

    — – – – – – – –

    Until now I have abstained from discussing the question of whether or not it would be moral to publish the password to the “all.7z” file containing UEA CRU emails / info.

    Here I go but remember this does not consider the separate legal questions, only some aspects of the moral. I differ to appropriate specialist legal consultants on the legal questions.

    First my conclusion then following it I discuss four points related to and supporting the conclusion.

    Conclusion – This is my answer the question of whether it is moral to release the pw and/or the unredacted CG3 emails. If a person thinks their possession of the non-scientific very personal private info of many climate scientists (which was obtained without their moral consent) is moral (independent of how they received it) and if also that same person thinks that it is moral for to let a restricted set of others have possession of the info, then then I think it is moral for anyone to possess that info. I think there would be no moral taint if someone publishes further that same info. BUT AGAIN this does not say anything about legal questions.

    Now here are the aforementioned four points related to and supporting the conclusion:

    NOTE: A lot of redundancy between each point and maybe wordy . . . I admit it. : )

    First, it appears that the pw was not solicited by at least some of the (~12?) recipients of the email from Mr FOIA containing the pw. Some said Mr FOIA’s pw was unsolicited, others said they got the pw but didn’t mention it being unsolicited and apparently some of the recipients are still unknown to the public. : ( For those recipients not soliciting the pw they did not agree in advance to Mr FOIA’s conditions about publicizing the password. FOIA’s dictate ‘DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD’ is not a mutual agreed to moral commitment. His apparent presumption seems to be that there is a moral commitment imposed on recipients. To me that implies he is comfortable with the concept of a small restricted climate science focused group / team / clique / club / tribe / core having a different morality than those not included. Sigh . . . . we’ve seen this kind of attitude / belief / concept before; exposed in the very emails contained in the first two CG releases.

    Second, Mr FOIA thought it moral to take unauthorized / illegal possession (in 2009) of the UEA CRU emails / info. He has had in his possession for over 3 years all the non-scientific and very personal private parts of the emails; of many climate scientists on an international level. He accepted it was moral for him to possess that very personal private info. {see point four below and also note: we should not naively presume to know how he has, to date after more than 3 years, privately used that very personal private info} He thinks it is moral for the pw recipients to hold that info, but beyond that small group he does not think it is moral. I think this implies that Mr FOIA’s is at some level a moral hypocrite, to say the least. He holds different morality for different people.

    Thirdly, some of the pw recipients apparently have shared the pw and/or unredacted emails with others; either with Mr FOIA’s prior concurrence thought extended email exchanges with him or without discussing it with him. I do not know if any of the original pw recipients made prior verbal/written agreements (on no publication of pw) with those they shared the pw. But probably in some cases there were prior agreements of some kind. Those involved think it is moral for themselves to possess the non-scientific and very personal private parts of the emails of many climate scientists without those scientists moral permission. But they do not think it is moral for others to possess that info. I think this implies that they at some level morally hypocritical, to say the least. We have seen before in the emails contained in the first two CG releases the idea that certain concepts of morality applies to only some but not others.

    Fourth, since we do not know the identity of Mr FOIA then we do not possess, via normal skeptical due diligence, any full evaluation of potential moral conflicts of interests. Like evaluating whether he has moral conflicts of interest in CG or in related science research or in the IPCC or in NGO’s or in a political situation. Therefore, his moral integrity in CG3 release is not established with a reasonable due diligent investigation by skeptics. Taking FOIA at face value at this point lacks serious skeptical robustness.

    John

  491. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    This is a pre-test of a comment with many html tags.

    – – – – – – –

    mark fraser says:
    March 16, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    Whitman: Philosophical arguments and logic. I’d rather look at it from a list of objectives, which in my case comprises safety and anonymity of FOIA, non-disclosure of purely personal information of any email participant in the text of CG3, as preconditions to the release of anything therewithin which reveals what I shall term “academic misdemeanors” in the generation, handling or modification of facts related to climate change research, policy or advocacy. If I had the password I’d do my best to “do no harm” while illuminating bad activities. Yeah, I’m capable of biased thinking. But I think we all kinda know what’s right and what’s wrong, regardless of any textbook defiinition of morality.

    – – – – – – – – – – –

    mark fraser,

    Hey, thanks for commenting. Nice to know someone has actually read a long comment like mine (maybe too long).

    First, before I respond to your comment on my post at John Whitman says: March 16, 2013 at 3:27 pm. , I need to point out two errors in it. I apologize for the errors.
    .

    Error Correction #1 – In my second paragraph the corrected sentence should read,

    “ Here I go but remember this does not consider the separate legal questions, only some aspects of the moral. I differ defer to appropriate specialist legal consultants on the legal questions.”

    Error Correction #2 – In my ninth paragraph the corrected paragraph should read,

    Thirdly, some of the pw recipients apparently have shared the pw and/or unredacted emails with others; either with Mr FOIA’s prior concurrence thought extended email exchanges with him or without discussing it with him. I do not know if any of the original pw recipients made prior verbal/written agreements (on no publication of pw) with those they shared the pw. But probably in some cases there were prior agreements of some kind. Those involved imply that it is moral for themselves to possess the non-scientific and very personal private parts of the emails of many climate scientists without those scientists moral permission. But they imply it is moral immoral for others to possess that info. I think this implies that they at some level morally hypocritical, to say the least. We have seen before in the emails contained in the first two CG releases the idea that certain concepts of morality applies to only some but not others.

    Regarding your comment, I only ask you to whether you would consider it moral for you to possess (regardless of how you got possession) the non-scientific very personal private info of those many scientists who did not give you their moral consent to possess? If you do think it is moral for you – as Mr FOIA does and as some of the recipients of pw emails do and as do some of those who were later given the password or unredactet CG3 emails by the original Mr FOIA email recipients – then how can you consider it not moral for others to possess that info?

    If you choose to answer my question, then it is your individual choice whether you arrive at your answer to my question by: 1) intuition or, 2) emotion or, 3) logic or, 4) faith or, 5) citing authority or, 6) philosophical analysis or, 7) a combination of 1 thru 6.

    John

  492. MartinGAtkins says:

  493. Peter in Ohio says:

    test link

    this image

  494. Mr Lynn says:

    provoter says:
    March 20, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    . . . On the one hand, it’s in everyone’s interest to ensure that posts be as clean and mistake-free as possible, even the little stuff, because the fact is there are a lot of eyeballs watching what gets written on this sight, site and not all of those eyeballs come here in peace. . .

    Peace. /

  495. MartinGAtkins says:

  496. MartinGAtkins says:

    test2

  497. John Whitman says:

    Moderators,

    Just pre-testing a comment with many html commands.

    – – – – – – – – –

    What is the Climate Science Rapid Response Team (CSRRT)?

    It is this process:

    Taken from http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/about.php

    [Note: all bold emphasis by me – John Whitman]

    The Process

    To use this service, please fill out the inquiry form on the right to identify yourself and pose your question, along with a deadline for response if applicable.

    That information will immediately be sent to four people: Dr. John Abraham, Prof. Scott Mandia, Professor Michael Ashley and Dr. Jan Dash. These four “matchmakers” will immediately forward the inquiry to those scientists with the most appropriate expertise. An authoritative response from one of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team scientists will be returned to the inquirer either directly or via one of the four matchmakers.

    – – – – – – – – –

    “An authoritative response” => On whose authority is the “authoritative response” claimed to be authoritative? Well, it is the 4Ms (four matchmakers) at CSRRT who decide who is the authority. It is the 4Ms who are the arbiter of climate science authority. They have claimed authority in the essentially non-authoritative process of science. No man can be an authority is science, only what nature shows us (observations) can be authoritative. Literally, their ‘authority’ is just a belief in what they assume is the truth.

    “those scientists with the most appropriate expertise” => Who decides the expert(s) in climate science? Well, again, it is the 4Ms at CSRRT who decide expertise. Are the CSRRT experts in areas where they judge expertise? No.

    “These four “matchmakers” “ are “Dr. John Abraham, Prof. Scott Mandia, Professor Michael Ashley and Dr. Jan Dash” => This is an ad hoc volunteer group of individuals who want to inform others about what they believe is the true science; to tell it to the media and public communities. They also assign people to claim truth in science at the discussions of the wonderfully independent and realistically focused open scientific venues such as WUWT.

    The CSRRT process in flawed when viewed from any perspective found in the history of the philosophy of science. The CSRRT process is simply mocking / imitating both the established science processes and the dialog of the general scientific community. The other word for mocking / imitating is ‘pseudo’. The CSRRT wishes to place their pseudo-process as equivalent to the honored scientific process. Feynman explained that there are ‘cargo-cult’ science believers who are mocking / imitating science. The CSRRT process has the elements of ‘cargo-cult’ science.

    If the CSRRT were to be part of the real scientific dialog that is inherent in the established science processes then they would simply have a blog based on principles like CA, WUWT, etc., etc., etc.

    John

  498. michael hart says:

    Actually, that Hansen paper is quite funny. It gets back into the rut with:

    “What is clear is that most of the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate.”

    and also:

    the ‘devil’s payment’ will be extracted from humanity via increased global warming.

    However the most notable quote is the repeated repetition of the word

    Hansen

    That should bump it up the self-citation index.

  499. michael hart says:

    I don’t spend much time on the sky-dragons, but that doesn’t mean they get everything wrong.

    A greenhouse-gas that is able to thermalize absorbed Infra-red radiation is, by definition, able to perform the reverse process, i.e. cool by radiation. No “ifs”, “buts”, or “maybes”, carbon dioxide can and does cool by radiating heat that is transported by convection and latent heat.

    How the combined warming and cooling effects are distributed and integrated over time and distance in the real world is, of course, a far more complicated question.

  500. BezorgdeBurger says:

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  501. michael hart says:

    Including his hat, that is now two things I can like about Hansen. Were it not for the environmental Cassandras, we could be much further advanced than we are with nuclear power.

    Also, let us not forget this reported by the Economist:

    “More than 28,700 people died in Japan; thousands more went missing.”

    http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21573082-stories-scene-devastation-triple-horror

    Observing MSM outlets such as the BBC having a collective orgasm at the prospect of a nuclear ‘catastrophe’ that didn’t happen was incredibly frustrating.

    The fact that the nuclear story often took precedence over the Tsunami that really did kill 28,700 Japanese citizens is nothing less than obscene.

  502. SAMURAI says:

    Global Warming,

  503. Matt G says:

    Just testing

  504. Matt G says:

    Message for mods, I don’t know why under “In a new study, James Hansen pushes nuclear power as saving more lives than it has harmed” thread, my user name is highlighted red and won’t let me post in it.

  505. scary pidgeon says:

    test post of URL

  506. Actual Actuary says:

    Professor Don Easterbrook schools the Washington State Legislature
    link

  507. David L. Hagen says:

    International uncertainty guidelines cover both statistical Type A errors, and Type B errors evaluated through scientific judgment. Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. JCGM 100:2008 Corrected version 2010.

    Wen et al. begin their evaluation in 1961, at the end of Mao’s Great Leap Forward from 1958-1961 (aka China’s Great Famine 1959-1961). During the world’s greatest famine resulted in about 30 to 40 million people dying from starvation, and a similar fewer number of children not being born or being postponed. See google Mao’s Great Leap Forward Images

    How well were temperature records kept during that period when so many were “preoccupied” with life and death issues?

    Similarly consider China’s Cultural Revolution 1966-1971. See google Mao Cultural Revolution, Images. During the chaos, the Red Guards were even allowed to loot army barracks and override the People’s Liberation Army. Mao’s “Down to the Countryside” movement resulted in massive numbers of urban youth being relocated to rural regions.
    Were temperature records equally well kept during this chaotic period?

    May I suggest that Type B errors have not been addressed by Wen et al, especially during these periods.

  508. Mark Bofill says:

    blahblah:
    blah blah, blah blah:
    So, this is what it looks like to put some arithmetic in a block quote:

    [ 5+ 6] * 11 = 121

    and again, this is what it looks like to put some arithmetic in a block quote:

    [ 5+ 6] * 11 = 121

  509. Latitude says:

    test

  510. One of my favorite “escalators” is a href=”http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1989.5/to:1996.41/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979.93/to:1986.3/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1986.3/to:1989.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1976.5/to:1979.93/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1968.91/to:1976.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1964.83/to:1968.91/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1996.41/to:2000.25/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000.25/to:2008.95/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1964/to:2013.3/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2008.95/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1964/mean:12/normalise”>this escalator</a.

  511. One of my favorite “escalators” is this escalator

  512. tckev says:

    Today’s close of trading showed that carbon credits are running 1:1 with pre-fossilized coprolite.

    ⅛²

  513. ipsum lorem etc & stuff

    test

  514. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    Testing some tinypic links

    – – – – – –

    [IMG]http://i33.tinypic.com/33yjlnn.jpg[/IMG]

    http://tinypic.com/r/33yjlnn/4k

  515. John Whitman says:

    Mods,

    another tinypic link test

    – – – – –

  516. clipe says:

    May 2-May 15 High [°C] Low [°C] P.O.P Conditions
    Thursday, May 2 19 Feels like 19 13 10% Sunny
    Friday, May 3 17 Feels like 17 11 20% Cloudy periods
    Saturday, May 4 17 Feels like 17 12 10% Sunny
    Sunday, May 5 17 Feels like 17 11 10% Sunny
    Monday, May 6 16 Feels like 16 11 10% Sunny
    Tuesday, May 7 16 Feels like 16 10 10% Sunny
    Wednesday, May 8 18 Feels like 20 10 10% Sunny
    Thursday, May 9 15 Feels like 14 12 10% Mainly sunny
    Friday, May 10 15 Feels like 14 10 10% Sunny
    Saturday, May 11 16 Feels like 15 9 70% Scattered showers
    Sunday, May 12 14 Feels like 13 10 20% Isolated showers
    Monday, May 13 13 Feels like 13 9 10% Sunny
    Tuesday, May 14 13 Feels like 13 7 40% Isolated showers
    Wednesday, May 15 15 Feels like 15 10 40% Isolated showers

  517. Gras Albert says:

  518. Gras Albert says:

  519. Keith says:

    Testing…

    <ahref=http://wattsupwiththat.com.Awesome blog
    Niño
    140°W

  520. Keith says:

    Trying again (infernal Shift key)…

    Awesome blog

  521. Karl says:

    Torne (Tornio) river ice break up dates extend back to 1693.

    Publication: Loader, N., Jalkanen, R., McCarroll, D. & Moberg, A. 2011. Spring temperature variability in Northern Fennoscandia AD1693–2011 (pdf). Journal of Quaternary Science 26(6) 566–570.

    Graph with dates:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3083.aspx

    The Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla) website:

    http://www.metla.fi/uutiskirje/mil/2012-01/uutinen-1.html

    Google translation:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metla.fi%2Fuutiskirje%2Fmil%2F2012-01%2Fuutinen-1.html

    Over the last 300 years the temperature has increased 2.5 degrees.

    Spring began to warm up before the industrial period

    The series is quite uniform throughout the entire 319-year period, despite the fact that about half of the series take place in the period before the amount of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions in a significant increase in the beginning. At that time (in about 1850) of the series is hard to find anything different

  522. Karl says:

    Tornio river break-up dates. Similar to Nenana here.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/tornio-rive-break-up-dates/

  523. -.-. .-.. .. .--. . says:

    -.-. .-.. .. .–. . says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Test

    http://www.onlineconversion.com/morse_code.htm

    Fail. What was I thinking? :)

  524. clipe says:

    -.-. .-.. .. .–. . says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    -.-. .-.. .. .–. . says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Test

    http://www.onlineconversion.com/morse_code.htm

    Fail. What was I thinking? :)

    Oops, forgot to remove morse.

  525. Colorado Wellington says:

    test photo imbedding:

  526. Colorado Wellington says:

  527. Nick Stokes says:

    λ*ΔF(n+1)*Δt/τ,

  528. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Let’s try an image:

  529. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Well, that test was a big “fail!” Sorry to use up the bandwidth, Anthony!

    http://thinkingshift.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/coming-to-australia/

  530. Janice Moore says:

  531. Ric Werme says:

    Testing something I saw in Tips & Notes that may mess up font size in subsequent comments.

  532. Foo
  533. Apologies in advance if this works.