Open Thread

I’m off this weekend – talk quietly and politely amongst yourselves. Don’t make me come back here.

open_thread

If you have something worth posting on the front page, flag a moderator.  In the meantime I have a couple of stories that will post using the WordPress scheduler. – Anthony

Advertisements

392 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. That’s cool Anthony. There is so much out there this week in not only the science of climate but also the politics of climate science.
    I would like to throw of the first tidbit out for discussion if I may. And that is…don’t you think that the energy spent into this global warming scare could have put to actual use for the population? Not only from the Warmist side, but from the skeptic side also. Will there always be a battle between right and wrong, good and bad? And if bad becomes good, and wrong becomes right, what will be our options? And at what time in the process of switching does one take a stand?
    The Left is moving forward with the belief that the science is settled. They are already getting some Republican representatives on board. If the few on the right that think that voting for this bill will help not only in there re-election but also give them more power, they WILL vote for this bill And if that happens, life,as we know it will cease to exist.
    So take a stand and write your representative, even if you think that they are on your side. Tell them that you think that this bill is a fraud.

  2. An irritating trait among sceptical (sorry, skeptical) commenters here is the tendency of many to see the AGW debate in political terms of rightwing defenders of liberty against leftwing global government fans (the watermelon theory).
    The latest example is Rereke Whakaaro on the UK TV ad thread, who picks up the fact that one of the British ministers responsible for this dire Orwellian propaganda campaign, Joan Ruddock, is an ex-chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and then accuses CND of being finance by “Moscow Gold”.
    This accusation is ludicrous, and entirely irrelevant to the AGW question. There are many leftwing Europeans who are fervent opponents of Global Warming Hysteria, and despair at seeing ALL the main political parties – left and right – kowtowing to this nonsense. Remember that Orwell, who is rightly admired and quoted on these threads, was a lifelong socialist. It’s not (fundamentally) about left versus right, but about truth versus propaganda.
    I’m a leftwing atheist European, and I’ve been known to heap praise on an article by a conservative Catholic American on this site, because it was an excellent article. By all means criticise the politics and the politicisation of science, but don’t think it can be done from a Right versus Left perspective. You alienate half the people you need to persuade.

  3. Why is it that us US colonists always have to find ourselves in an American Revolution mode against the Brits? Keep your bloody taxation to yourselves.
    I don’t see any tea parties in Britain, except the kind you have at 4 p.m.

  4. I wonder if this UK co2 ad campaign is open to legal challenge, if it were deemed misleading and removed it would send a high profile message to a large audience.

  5. Amazing that REM tried to make the public aware of of environmental and political issues (leftward may I add), with their music….but they completely failed. Their lyrics are so capitalistic and anti communistic…and they don’t even know it! They sing in their lyrics the voices of free people. And that is the whole crux of the left and the greens. They know what is right but since they have no one to answer to they create their own God. And to them, God is Green. It is Gaia. But their true self (the man/sin of the bible), eventually shows through.
    I know this is off topic…but there is no topic eh? Global warming and all that goes with it is nothing more than the new religion. Science hasn’t been thrown out of the door, it has been embraced and manupulated to fit the this new religion. And just like all other religions that gained momentum, this one will also probably become a belief accepted by the masses.
    Unless…..it is met by force. But that talk is not allowed eh?
    So I guess we should all just submit…..I mean others have submitted and survived eh?

  6. Hi,
    I know Anthony is away (great job Anthony by the way) but would there be any mileage in looking at the current goings on at the Artic? The Artic Temperature graph you carry from DMI is showing very unusual temperature variations. The ice growth isn’t accumulating as quickly as some of us had assumed it would.
    Could someone visit this and provide an opinion? I’m no scientist but obviously I have an opinion. It kind of looks like the temperature has a part to play but other things are happening as well. I’ve looked back the archive on the DMI site and, dare I say, there is no similar signature. Unprecedented? How long will it be before the warmists grab this?
    P

  7. Ah
    I am first here so let me pose a question to us all.
    A bit of background first. When I discuss Global Warming with my warmist friends I ask them
    “what (if anyhing) would convince you it is not happening?”
    Well let me ask the question in reverse to Anthony’s readers.
    “What (if anything) would convince you that Manmade emissions of Carbon Dioxide Poses a catastrophic threat to the world?”
    My own personal answer is a) finding the hotspot b) if Ocean Heat Content tracked model predictions for 10 years.
    40 Shades

  8. Whoa…at lot of “firsts’ already….has Anthony opened a Pandora’s Box? This could go weird…which is not needed right now. Oh well, I am getting ready to submit as the effort to do otherwise is not paying off. As they say, talk is cheap, revolution is bloody, change is bull hockey.

  9. P Gosselin (02:11:30) :
    Why is it that us US colonists always have to find ourselves in an American Revolution mode against the Brits? Keep your bloody taxation to yourselves.

    How about dealing with 5th columnists Hansen and Gore before taking a swipe at us Brits?
    😉

  10. I have crossed between the poles, for me theres no mystery.
    Once a man, like the sea I raged,
    Once a woman, like the earth I gave.
    But there is in fact more earth than sea.

  11. Petem130 (02:27:04) :
    I know Anthony is away (great job Anthony by the way) but would there be any mileage in looking at the current goings on at the Artic? The Artic Temperature graph you carry from DMI is showing very unusual temperature variations. The ice growth isn’t accumulating as quickly as some of us had assumed it would.
    Could someone visit this and provide an opinion? I’m no scientist but obviously I have an opinion. It kind of looks like the temperature has a part to play but other things are happening as well. I’ve looked back the archive on the DMI site and, dare I say, there is no similar signature. Unprecedented? How long will it be before the warmists grab this?

    In a nutshell, Sea surface temperatures are up becuase the oceans have gone into heat release mode because solar activity is low. This is slowing down the formation of arctic winter ice. Because Ocean heat content is at a historic high, and solar activity at a century low, there is a lot of momentum in this upwelling of stored heat and it will take time to subside.
    However when it does, global temperature will plummet to below jan 2007 levels and the warmista will be left with much egg on face.

  12. gtrip (03:14:47) :
    Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?

    How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?
    😉
    (note smiley)

  13. The following “hard hitting” TV campaign is targetted at (cf insulting the intelligence of) UK climate realists and was aired during a popular, prime-time soap:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece
    Obviously the morons in Nu Labour believe the average UK sceptic (sic) has the IQ of an eight year old and that we all watch mind-numbing soaps. I just love it when these muppets underestimate the intelligence of anyone (rather a lot of people actually) who thinks independently of the socialist, politically correct hive-mind.
    The majority of comments below the article are informed and very heartwarming which indicates that the Brownites have just piddled £6,000,000 in taxpayer money up the wall for zero gain.
    The Times, a rabidly warmist and alarmist member of the MSM, is the same newspaper that recently plastered London tube trains with posters depicting THAT German ship being the first to navigate the North East Passage AFTER the story had been proved false. Never let the real story get in the way of a good lie…

  14. tallbloke (03:32:40) :
    gtrip (03:14:47) :
    How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?
    😉
    Wisdom falls on deaf ears 🙂 ….did I get the smiley thing right?

  15. geoffchambers (02:03:48) :
    “An irritating trait among sceptical (sorry, skeptical) commenters here is the tendency of many to see the AGW debate in political terms of rightwing defenders of liberty against leftwing global government fans (the watermelon theory).”
    An irritating trait among alarmists who are not themselves left wing global government watermelons, is that they are what Lenin used to call “useful idiots” in that they serve the purpose of the left wing global government watermelon movement, agree with much of what they have to say, but continue to insist that they are their own person and are not merely a walking mass of preprogrammed left wing memes inculcated in them since University or before.

  16. “tallbloke (03:32:40) :
    gtrip (03:14:47) :
    Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?
    How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?
    😉
    (note smiley)”
    LMAO, good come back!

  17. Not to be to US centrist…but it is 23 degrees F in Grand Island Nebraska right now….and snowing. Oh well, I guess a warm front will come down an even things out! How are things playing out there in th UK? You all dismissed the temps from the central part of your island. You couldn’t take the reality just as you couldn’t take the reality of a bunch of uneducated colonist having a belief in something better. Just like India and Indonesia and parts of Africa. Still grasping at straws and trying to imperialise the world eh? You should all just stick to Page three tits and be happy already. Or you all could get together for three hours and watch people kick a ball around and if you are lucky, maybe someone will put it into a hole.

  18. tallbloke (03:28:02) :
    Excellent thought process. Cold water sinks, warm water rises. The troubling questions are:
    1.) How long before the warm water is exhausted and
    2.) How far will climate then plummet when the warmth is spent?

  19. tailbloke,
    They’re benedict arnolds who have the full support of the British “Establishment”. To the common blokes of GB, I urge you all to move your dull teas parties from you living rooms and bring them onto the streets, and make them rock!
    A little inspiration:

    I myself have had it with your taxation schemes.
    The Revolution starts with a tea party!

  20. Dammit! I should have known other WUWTers were already on the Poor Fluffy Bunnies story. That’ll teach me to post without reading the new threads first.
    😀

  21. Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?
    It is my understanding they got their start stealing American music – from Blacks. Racist? Not really. Just good business. Just ask some students from the London School of Economics.

  22. tallbloke (03:28:02): In a nutshell, Sea surface temperatures are up becuase the oceans have gone into heat release mode because solar activity is low.
    That is just your opinion. You don’t understand the heat absorption and release any more than the scientist that claim they do.
    The oceans are still absorbing solar radiation. Just not as much because of the cloud cover that is out there now. And soon to be increasing (cloud cover).
    There appears to be a three or four step climate dance that goes on here on our earth. And they waver back and forth between each other and balance out the out climate while doing their dance.
    We are entering a period of cooler ocean temps, along with increasing cloud cover, both due to a lack of solar influence. The majority of the civilized world will soon be in a new “dark age” with lots of cold and rain. And when that happens, we can find another new religion to bring us to the new promise land……until then,..I hope the Rockies win tomorrow…we need a showcase.

  23. Lucy Skywalker’s BBC article is worthy of a post here at Watt’s up. It’s worth viewing the artlce. It will also drive up the views and where the story appears at the BBC. It’s actually a bit of a big deal. If the main stream media starts to cover the skeptics fairly it will cause problems for the AGW alarmists beofore Copenhagen. It’s a real pity that Steve McIntyre’s discoveries of the weak Briffa Yamal cores data has thus far only been covered in main stream media by the National Post in Canada. But we can hope it will get further coverage. The papers know any story that drums up controversy gets attention and that is what they need. So they might cover more skeptical views.
    The point about not making AGW skepticism / vs alarmism a political battle is important. Here in Australia there are members of our centre Left party, the Australian Labour Party, who are skeptics, as there are ‘Liberal Skeptics’ in the US. There are also Republican alaramists.
    This issue shouldn’t be a Left/Right issue. It should be thoroughly discussed from both sides.

  24. geoffchambers (02:03:48)
    Agreed. Al Gore was quite right to say the issue is non political, and that it cuts across the frontiers. Thats why be based his investment company in London where the impending catastrophe (note – it is always impending and never real) has been pushed the hardest. In the UK we would do anything for money, since we have nothing else. Its not a right v left issue as such.

  25. I really wish the poms were more inclined to suing people like their fellows across the pond. I really hope someone takes the UK Government to task over that outrageous commercial.
    Heartening to see that 52% polled thought AGW was not something to worry about.

  26. Have a good trip…..woops, gotta go to the outhouse, tear me off a piece of that nobel peace prize.

  27. geoffchambers (02:03:48) :…” accusation is ludicrous, and entirely irrelevant to the AGW question. There are many leftwing Europeans who are fervent opponents of Global Warming Hysteria”
    That is only because the far left environmentalists want far more than any country is willing to give (up). But at the same time, most countries are willing to pass laws that will give their own countries as many environmental laws that also give them total power. They are trying to appease to Greens and their agenda but still keeping their own. The green left pretty much wants anarchy….the political left doesn’t want to go that far,,,,they just want complete control over people and industry..

  28. geoffchambers (02:03:48) :
    “An irritating trait among sceptical (sorry, skeptical) commenters here is the tendency of many to see the AGW debate in political terms of rightwing defenders of liberty against leftwing global government fans (the watermelon theory).”
    ——————————–
    I couldn’t agree with you more.
    http://www.shvoong.com/exact-sciences/earth-sciences/498637-great-global-warming-swindle/
    “The theory of manmade global warming began to be politicized when Margaret Thatcher (then Prime Minister) set out to break the political power of the coal miners. She saw an opportunity in the global warming debate to promote nuclear power because it doesn’t emit CO2.”

  29. 40 Shades of Green (02:27:35) :
    […]
    “What (if anything) would convince you that Manmade emissions of Carbon Dioxide Poses a catastrophic threat to the world?”
    […]

    I don’t think that anything could convince me now.
    Five years ago, I would have had a different answer.
    I am convinced that the frequency of the Schwabe (11-yr) solar cycle has a high degree of correlation with the PDO cycle. When the Schwabe is “speeding up” (11 years), the PDO is negative. SC 22, which ended in 1996, was the “fastest” Schwabe cycle in over 100 years, with a length of 9.7 years. In 2005-2006, it became apparent that SC 23 was going to be anomalously long; while at the same time, it also became apparent that global warming had paused. Since then, the PDO has gone negative and even some of the “warmistas” are acknowledging that global warming is taking a break that could last another 10 to 20 years. My bet is that this current cooling phase will last until at least 2023, with a UAH temp. anom. nadir in the -0.2 range .
    So… If the Earth failed to begin cooling as the Schwabe cycle slowed down, I would have been more inclined to accept the AGW theory as being valid.
    Another avenue by which I could have been convinced is in the ice core data. The initial announcement that delta-T and delta-CO2 correlated very well in Pleistocene glacial cycles according to data derived from ice cores, made me think that maybe CO2 was a climate driver. The subsequent “discovery” that the delta-T always preceded the delta-CO2 convinced me that, if anything, climate change drives the carbon cycle.
    Then there was the “Hockey Stick” fiasco. MBH98/MBH99 were published right about when North Texas seemed to be becoming hotter and hotter every year and between the time that the Pleistocene ice core data were announced and the lag time discovered. I assumed that MBH98/MBH99 were valid paleoclimate reconstructions.
    The unravelling of the Hockey Stick, the CO2 lag time in the ice cores and the fact that Earth started to cool in concert with the lengthening Schwabe cycle pretty well QED’ed it for me.
    At this point, the only thing that could push me back toward accepting the greenhouse gas-driven AGW theory would be a resumption of a warming trend in the low frequency component of the satellite temperature data. Even then, the fact that pretty well all of the fraud and gross scientific errors have been on the part of the IPCC and “warmistas,” would make it very difficult to accept the greenhouse gas-driven AGW theory.

  30. geoffchambers,
    Then we look forward to seeing a range of leftist media, politicians, pundits, and blogs expressing their s(c/k)epticism. Got some good links?
    Yes, Orwell was a Socialist, but it wasn’t a coincidence that he chose the term ‘Ingsoc’ to represent the philosophy of totalitarian control over every aspect of people’s lives, supposedly in the interests of a greater good. Totalitarians like to use good causes as justifications for the coercive controlling measures they want to bring in, and highlight shared external threats to justify the sacrifices of individual liberty and prosperity these entail.
    There are a few well-known exceptions, but the assumptions are based on a genuine lack of liberal (in the original sense) left-wing voices to speak out against this tendency. So it’s good to have you on side, here.
    We need more.

  31. Patrick Davis (03:53:09) :
    “tallbloke (03:32:40) :
    gtrip (03:14:47) :
    Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?
    How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?
    😉
    (note smiley)”
    LMAO, good come back!
    Come on Patrick Davis…..Your only post is a dig????

  32. Jimbo (04:45:35) :
    geoffchambers (02:03:48) :
    I couldn’t agree with you more.
    “The theory of manmade global warming began to be politicized when Margaret Thatcher (then Prime Minister) set out to break the political power of the coal miners. She saw an opportunity in the global warming debate to promote nuclear power because it doesn’t emit CO2.”
    Keep dreaming Jimbo and geoff. Are you members of the club of Rome?

  33. gtrip (04:19:41) :
    tallbloke (03:28:02): In a nutshell, Sea surface temperatures are up becuase the oceans have gone into heat release mode because solar activity is low.
    That is just your opinion. You don’t understand the heat absorption and release any more than the scientist that claim they do….
    We are entering a period of cooler ocean temps, along with increasing cloud cover, both due to a lack of solar influence.

    I notice you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, then repeat my thesis. 😉
    As a matter of fact it’s not just my opinion, but the result of detailed calculations done by me and verified by none other than Leif Svalgaard.

  34. I’m writing something to give to people who are ‘brain washed’ about global warming. I came up with this:

    In the last 100 years CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 380 ppm, an increase of about 100 ppm. The Earth’s temperature has gone up by 0.6C. Both figures are disputed but these are the figures used by most scientists. The consensus is that the temperature rise is due to the increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.
    However, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. This is accepted by all scientists. In order to get a further temperature rise of 0.6C, CO2 will have to increase by another 200 ppm, or twice as much before. Another +0.6C after that would require an additional 400 ppm and so on.
    When will CO2 reach another 200ppm? Not in your lifetime. Another 400 ppm after that looks impossible because there isn’t enough coal, oil and gas in the world to do that.
    What’s more, most of the temperature increase has been in Siberia, in winter and at night. This is as expected. The temperature where most people live has hardly changed at all.

  35. rbateman (03:58:46) :
    tallbloke (03:28:02) :
    Excellent thought process. Cold water sinks, warm water rises. The troubling questions are:
    1.) How long before the warm water is exhausted and
    2.) How far will climate then plummet when the warmth is spent?
    There is another component to it, particularly important for Artic Ocean. Hot waters of Gulf stream evaporates, increasing salinity, becomes heavy, sinks down; fresh waters of arctic rivers and ice melting are lighter and float on the top.
    http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/2005/12/halocline_18008.jpg

  36. rbateman (03:58:46) :
    tallbloke (03:28:02) :
    Excellent thought process. Cold water sinks, warm water rises. The troubling questions are:
    1.) How long before the warm water is exhausted and
    2.) How far will climate then plummet when the warmth is spent?

    According to the model I’ve built which uses sunspot numbers and a magnetism proxy (LOD), it will take quite a while for the heat accumulated in the upper 700m of the ocean during the high solar cycles of the C20th to be released. It will happen in waves too, so it’s hard to predict exactly how far the global temperature will dip between each phase of heat release. It’s a process which will go on for a couple of decades at least, and will be modified by the solar cycles during that time.
    My model predicts a fall of around 0.35C in SST’s over the next 20 years given lower than average solar cycles. That would still leave ocean heat content higher than 1953, and would leave us in 1960’s-70’s temperatures. By then though, the PDO should be about to turn positive again, unless we get a grand solar minimum…
    My model is only tentative, as always more and better data is needed.

  37. Orwell was a skeptical socialist. He thought the theories looked good on paper but in practice they were impossible to achieve because power corrupts. 1984 and Animal Farm is what happens in practice.

  38. P Gosselin (04:02:58) :
    tailbloke,
    They’re benedict arnolds who have the full support of the British “Establishment”. To the common blokes of GB, I urge you all to move your dull teas parties from you living rooms and bring them onto the streets, and make them rock!
    A little inspiration:

    I myself have had it with your taxation schemes.
    The Revolution starts with a tea party!

    I’ve been advocating the same thing regarding the Climate bill in the U.S. Hold a big party in the parks of the cities on a nice summer day and hand out lots of leaflets with juicy quotes from founding fathers and scientists whose work shows the falsity of AGW.
    How about an international climate reality day next summer? I’ve helped organise events before, and been in the front line against the riot cops on a few occasions too. Poll tax, Anti war rallies etc.
    I’m up for it.

  39. Here is a news flash…….
    There is no such thing as “the greenhouse effect”.
    The atmosphere has a cooling effect as well as a warming effect. The deceptive term “greenhouse effect” implies only a warming effect, yet gasses behave as a liquid to temperature and while they may warm, they also cool. If they did not then every thing living at equator would be cooked alive at noon on a daily basis. The surface of the moon (which of course has no atmosphere) reaches 123º C in the Sun.
    CO2 absorbs heat but it cannot trap heat. When it has absorbed heat it expands as do the all the other gasses it is mixed with such as nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour. Do not be fooled by the false claims that CO2 is special or unique in the way it is effected by heat. All gasses absorb and re-emit heat. It does not matter that they do this at various frequencies, all that maters is that they all do it. If they did not they would not be gasses, they would be solid ice. Therefore all gasses absorb and re-emit heat and so must all be greenhouse gasses, if not then none at all.
    These mixed gasses when warmed, then rise up through the atmosphere and exchange the heat with colder gasses higher up. The higher they rise the colder it gets. As space is 0º K or – 278º C there is only one possible outcome. All the heat energy received from the sun is re-emitted back into space. You do not need to be a scientist to understand this concept. It is more than attested to by 4, 500,000,000 years of relative temperature stability. If CO2 could trap heat and cause global warming it would have done so already. Perhaps when CO2 was @ 1000 ppm or 2000 ppm or even when it was @ 3000 ppm. Maybe runaway global warming should have occurred when CO2 was 4000, 5000, 6000, or 7000 ppm as it has been in the past. But it has never occurred at these levels so why should we be concerned about 100 ppm increase?
    The answer of course, is that we shouldn’t.
    Gasses in a greenhouse cannot convect but gasses in the atmosphere can convect. So in a greenhouse there is a “greenhouse effect” but in the atmosphere there is not.
    A “greenhouse gas” is a gas inside a greenhouse.
    The key is convection which is why you will never hear the topic of convection being properly discussed by proponents of AGW.
    Like I said earlier, you do not need to be a scientist to work this out. The truth is hanging there like an over ripe apple waiting to be plucked. All you need to do is reason it through with logic and common sense and the AGW scam as it is will evaporate.
    Remember, there is no substance known to man that can trap heat! Think about that for a moment.
    For a more detailed look at the AGW deception download this free .pdf.
    [snip – self promotion ]

  40. That BBC story Lucy pointed to is a cover up for the UK Met Office. They claim they know it all and it is all in their models. They claim the warm is coming back!
    I wish it would because I will not be able to afford any heating next year given current forecasts of energy price rises in the UK.

  41. “…chose the term ‘Ingsoc’ to represent the philosophy of totalitarian control over every aspect of people’s lives…”
    ‘Totalitarians like to use good causes as justifications for the coercive controlling measures they want to bring in’
    Mwa ha ha hahahaha!

  42. It has not been a good 2 weeks for the warmies.
    “Well let me ask the question in reverse to Anthony’s readers.
    “What (if anything) would convince you that Manmade emissions of Carbon Dioxide Poses a catastrophic threat to the world?”
    For me, it is clear that the global temperature is driven to a large extent by the oceans. I need to see a proven mechanism by which additional CO2 in the atmosphere is heating the oceans. And I don’t mean a computer model either….

  43. gtrip (03:53:25) :
    Not to be to US centrist…but ….
    How are things playing out there in th UK? You all dismissed the temps from the central part of your island. You couldn’t take the reality just as you couldn’t take the reality of a bunch of uneducated colonist having a belief in something better. Just like India and Indonesia and parts of Africa. Still grasping at straws and trying to imperialise the world eh? You should all just stick to Page three tits and be happy already. Or you all could get together for three hours and watch people kick a ball around and if you are lucky, maybe someone will put it into a hole.

    I sense…. issues.
    And I note: that according to polls there is a slightly higher proportion of scepticism in the UK than there is in the U.S.
    And I suggest: That driving a wedge between sceptical Brit’s and sceptical Yanks, or sckeptical ‘marxists’ and sceptical ‘rednecks’ is probably not the best way forward.
    We’re in this together, brother. 😉

  44. tallbloke (05:05:26) : I notice you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, then repeat my thesis. 😉
    I just gave you my non peer reviewed observation. It was no more than that. And last I read, Leif doesn’t give much credence to solar influence on the Earth’s climate. He seems to be more into making observations only and publishing non committal results. Which is good, it allows others to use his observations in their search of whatever they are looking for. But you would think an observer would come to a few conclusions after a certain amount of time….you know, Red sky at morning etc….but in all honesty, I do have respect for observers….if they just don’t get too smug without any commitments…..

  45. geoffchambers (02:03:48) :“An irritating trait among sceptical (sorry, skeptical) commenters here is the tendency of many to see the AGW debate in political terms of rightwing defenders of liberty against leftwing global government fans (the watermelon theory).”
    Any time that a governing body wishes to impose it’s will on those they govern by monetary policy it’s political. This is especially true in the climate debate because the government’s imposition is based on computer models and scare tactics. Add in a heathly dose of “convince the children first” policy and the only conclusion one can come to is that the real motivation is more control. I have, from day one, been convinced that President Obama is just the front man for a far left group whose only agenda is to set up a world government that they control. It is this group that handed the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Obama in order to boost his prestige as that has been taking huge hits of late. Mr Obama, being the narcissist that he is, doesn’t even realize this is. The first step in this world takeover is to continually indoctrinate children, done. The second step is to find an “impending global catastrophe” to distract the world, done. The next step is to wreck the U.S. economy and turn it towards socialism, that is underway. Finally they will get the world off the U.S. dollar and create a unified world currency. Slowly, one by one, nations have to will have to commit to joining this new world order to survive. Yes, it is all political, it always is.

  46. “gtrip (05:02:48) :
    Jimbo (04:45:35) :
    geoffchambers (02:03:48) :
    I couldn’t agree with you more.
    “The theory of manmade global warming began to be politicized when Margaret Thatcher (then Prime Minister) set out to break the political power of the coal miners. She saw an opportunity in the global warming debate to promote nuclear power because it doesn’t emit CO2.”
    Keep dreaming Jimbo and geoff. Are you members of the club of Rome?”
    It’s rather easy to google, and as I was there when the “Iron Lady” drove the country to war (Nice little earner for desparate polliticians), I can verify it to be true.
    “gtrip (04:53:49) :
    Patrick Davis (03:53:09) :
    “tallbloke (03:32:40) :
    gtrip (03:14:47) :
    Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?
    How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?
    😉
    (note smiley)”
    LMAO, good come back!
    Come on Patrick Davis…..Your only post is a dig????”
    No, my *first* post in thread. Keep up!

  47. “tallbloke (03:32:40) :
    How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?”
    There is an old adage among lawyers:
    When you have the law, argue the law;
    when you have the facts, argue the facts;
    when you have neither, shout.

  48. M. Simon (04:14:23) :
    Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?
    It is my understanding they got their start stealing American music – from Blacks. Racist? Not really. Just good business. Just ask some students from the London School of Economics.
    I was thinking more along the lines of “Supper’s Ready” and “Cinema Show”, which are definitely not not black influenced.

  49. gtrip (05:02:48) :
    Keep dreaming Jimbo and geoff. Are you members of the club of Rome?

    No, but several members of the UK govt are, along with Tony B-liar. And they have a chunk of shares in the nuclear industry too.

  50. Judging from the diagram Anthony has posted above, I surmise that he has embarked on a power squadron course. There can only be one reason for making hempen rope: (Though I am told hemp rope is ideal for hangin’ someone!)
    Fair seas Mr. Watts, and keep her close to the wind! Mind you don’t mix the halyards and the sheets! And fer gawds sake, watch out for the boom!
    Arrrr me maties!

  51. If you have something worth posting on the front page, flag a moderator.
    How do I flag a moderator? I’ve done an analysis of all monthly maximum temperatures at all (29) Australian weather stations with a 100+ year record. (Like the one Anthony(?) did a while ago on the US ones.)
    Prompted by what I found, the following letter is going in the mail tomorrow, to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (“BOM”). (The contact details on their website appear not to include email addresses)
    To :
    Bureau of Meteorology
    GPO Box 1289
    Melbourne VIC 3001
    Dear Sir/Madam
    re : Your Climate Media Releases
    I note that in recent months you have issued a number of media releases emphasising record high temperatures :
    September 01 Record-breaking hot August
    September 01 Climate records broken
    August 25 Summer days in winter continue to break more records in NSW
    August 24 Summer days in winter break records in NSW
    I would suggest that the impression given by these media releases is that the Australian climate is now much warmer than in the past, and that temperature records are being broken across the country.
    But this is not the case. I suggest that it would be reasonable to issue media releases that also give the other side of the story, or at least more of the full picture.
    In the period since Australia’s temperature records began (1855), the Maximum Temperature records on your website for the longest-running stations show that :
    • Australia’s all-time high temperature records occur mainly before 1940, with a surprisingly high number before 1900. There are remarkably few in the last decade.
    • The average maximum temperatures of the last few years only slightly exceed those of the 1870s to 1890s. [sic]
    • While Australia’s maximum winter temperatures have got warmer over time (hence your recent media releases), the summer temperatures have actually been getting cooler.
    In more detail :-
    […continues with the details behind the above comments…]

  52. Petem130 (02:27:04) :
    Don’t worry about the DMI temperature variations. Ice melts at 0.01C and that graph shows well below freezing.
    Take a look at the thermometers at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/
    North Pole Environmental Observatory. Temperatures there can change 10 – 15 degrees in hours.

  53. “How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?”
    In the late 50s- 60s my father would always say that Americans had obnoxious kids who grew into wonderful adults.
    I suppose most of you are those kids. 🙂

  54. Question for tallbloke, or anyone else that can answer.
    My house has a west facing concrete wall. It absorbs heat when the sun beats down on it. When I walk by the wall after the sun has gone down, I feel the heat radiating from the wall. My question is: does the heat only radiate after the sun stops heating it? Or is it radiating heat back as it is also absorbing it? And when does absorption stop and radiation begin? Can they happen at the same time?
    I believe that is what Nasef(?) in Monterey has been trying to get across in his discussions with Leif regarding heat transfers. Please correct my thinking as you may.

  55. October 9, 2011
    (Associated Press)
    OSLO — President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the third consecutive time on Friday for his “continuous efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples and in recognition of his two acceptance speeches at previous awards ceremonies.”
    “After much analysis, those of us on the committee realized that we were unwilling to listen to anyone else give an acceptance speech,” said Nobel awards director Paar Svinborg. “After his first speech, during which every committee member wept, we didn’t see how he could out-do himself. And then there was last year.”
    In 2010, of course, Obama received a record 62 standing ovations during his speech. At the time, it was wrongly assumed that a three-peat was impossible.
    “I grant that I am humbled this year even more than last,” Obama said in the 2010 speech.
    Expectations are that he will be even more humbled by the third award.
    Although various nay-sayers continued to complain that a sitting U.S. president probably shouldn’t be recognized for whatever efforts he has undertaken a single time, let alone three times in a row, supporters were clearly pleased.
    “None of us are saying that he is the new Messiah,” said Josh Turnbull, Obama’s second press secretary. “That kind of talk always comes from the radical right. What we are saying is ‘Hey, who else has even two Nobel peace prizes?’ We think it’s meaningful.”
    According to anonymous sources who took part in the deliberations this year, serious discussion took place regarding making Obama the permanent recipient of the Nobel peace prize.
    “Well, it just gets tiresome,” one source said. “People make other nominations and act as though they’re sincere about it, when everyone knows perfectly well that no one can compete with the man.”
    Representatives of former President Bill Clinton denied rumors that the 42nd president was “incensed” to have fallen behind the sitting president by “one more freaking award.”
    “I am deeply pleased that my friend and colleague Barack Obama has continued to walk in the shoes of Democratic Nobel-prize winning presidents who came before him,” Mr. Clinton said in a prepared statement. Mr. Clinton declined to respond to e-mail requests for comment regarding the fact that he remains tied with former President Jimmy Carter. In the past he has referred to this circumstance as “humiliating.”
    President Obama appeared to discourage making the Nobel Peace Prize a yearly affair for himself. “Believe me, I’m flattered,” he said. “But as fun as the girls and Michelle and I find Oslo, and we love it, once a year is a lot. Maybe every two years?”
    A recent AP poll, taken in August, found that only 7 percent of respondents had any idea why the president had been awarded the Nobel prize twice already. Of those who said they did not know why the award had been given to Obama twice, 56 percent said that they were “perplexed” by the second award, 32 percent said that they were “basically a little freaked out” by it, and 12 percent said they were “extremely weirded out.”
    The United States’ continued involvement in Afghanistan proved to be no obstacle to the third award.
    “I think you can make a good argument that any number of Soviet presidents should have received this award while their country was occupying Afghanistan,” Obama said in an interview with Agence France Presse. “Look, it’s easy to armchair quarterback on this one, believe me I know it is. But once you’re looking at this part of the world from the vantage point of the generals, you understand that sometimes a broader peace requires difficult decisions on the regional level.”
    The Nobel committee declined to release the names of the other formal nominees, citing the “shame factor.”
    “Well, in a normal year, everyone gets at least a few votes,” said Svinborg. “That makes it easy for the nominees who don’t win. But, so far, no one else has earned any votes when Obama has been on the ballot.”
    Asked how he assessed the chances of the award being made permanent, over the president’s objections, Svinborg shrugged his shoulders knowingly and appeared to smirk.
    “Does that mean ‘yes,’ Mr. Chairman?” a reporter asked.
    “It doesn’t mean no,” Svinborg said.

  56. The El Nino is still around because we haven’t seen any East to West equatorial winds strong enough to blow off the normally warm skin of water (we are in the doldrums, an old sailor term for no wind). The next step is to figure out why the Easterlies are quiet. Too be sure, they are not abnormally quiet. They just get quiet and then El Nino shows up. When they pick up again, La Nina will arrive.
    The Sun just keeps doing what it does, with its tiny changes not strong enough to bring about Nino’s or Nina’s. As for cooler spots showing up now and then off the Western Central American and South American coast, Kelvin ocean waves occur during El Ninos which always have a cooler trailing edge as they propagate across the Pacific from East to West.

  57. It’s a small point, but of course CND was funded by “Moscow Gold”. CND was funded partly by the Communist Party of Great Britain – it never denied that – and the CPGB was funded almost entirely by Moscow (though it denied that for decades). And that’s that.

  58. It is possible to be too naive about Communist or other outside influence of politically minded individuals.
    In UK in the 1970s there was much industrial unrest and many said it was a Soviet backed plot to destabilise the UK.
    I and most others felt that that was going too far and that the employee union leaders were just misguided and rather ignorant.
    Now we have just found out that apparently Jack Jones, the most influential union leader of them all for many years and someone I well remember as having been in the national news most days was directly paid by Soviet agents for most of his life.
    There should have been a lot more said about that but the media here is keeping quiet about the issue.
    It makes me realise how much potential there must still be even today for subversive activities to try to destabilise our relatively free and democratic societies.
    It might be more comfortable to trust to the honesty and goodwill of others but history shows it not to be wise.

  59. “Pedro X (04:21:52) :
    … It’s a real pity that Steve McIntyre’s discoveries of the weak Briffa Yamal cores data has thus far only been covered in main stream media by the National Post in Canada. …”
    It is. And unfortunately because of the Post’s readership, it’s largely “preaching to the choir”.

  60. In spirit of Bill the Cat, ‘Pfft, Ack!’ Seems all I did was comment on a post titled ‘Conflicting Views On Climate Change’ and not a post to comment on. Seems I’m not completely savvy on blog speak or the blogosphere just yet. My apologies.

  61. tallbloke
    Without the calculations, is there some way to physically explain ocean heat release mode? My only knowledge as a starting point is that solar heating of the oceans is and should still be decreasing. Also since everything is nonuniform, there will be places with more and less solar heating and places with more and less heat release which should also affect ocean currents and winds.

  62. Since it is an open forum , here’s a little cold weather news from Colorado.
    17 deg F & snowing this morning at the house in SW Denver foothills.
    Previous record low in denver was 25 – smashed that with 18 officially at the airport!
    Today’s high wont be much above the previous record low.
    If the Rockies & Phillies play this evening (big if – as it is snowing), I think it might be the coldest major league game ever (game time temp in the mid 20’s , falling to the low 20’s). Can find some definitive info on the coldest major league game – my quick search didn’t turn up much.
    2nd ski area has opened here – Arapahoe basin – their earliest opening ever. Loveland ski opened earlier in the week – the earliest opening in 40 years.
    10 days straight of below normal temps, models indicate at least another 7 days before even a chance of normal temps. Currently 11 deg below avg for the month (not including today, which will bring that average down even further). 2 record lows broken & 1 tied so far this month (including today)
    How’s that for weather isn’t climate ????

  63. I have a challenge for any warmists who happen to be reading this:
    Briefly summarize the evidence for CAGW without any appeals to authority.

  64. geoffchambers (02:03:48) :
    An irritating trait among sceptical (sorry, skeptical) commenters here is the tendency of many to see the AGW debate in political terms of rightwing defenders of liberty against leftwing global government fans (the watermelon theory).
    The latest example is Rereke Whakaaro on the UK TV ad thread, who picks up the fact that one of the British ministers responsible for this dire Orwellian propaganda campaign, Joan Ruddock, is an ex-chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and then accuses CND of being finance by “Moscow Gold”.
    This accusation is ludicrous, and entirely irrelevant to the AGW question. There are many leftwing Europeans who are fervent opponents of Global Warming Hysteria, and despair at seeing ALL the main political parties – left and right – kowtowing to this nonsense. Remember that Orwell, who is rightly admired and quoted on these threads, was a lifelong socialist. It’s not (fundamentally) about left versus right, but about truth versus propaganda.
    I’m a leftwing atheist European, and I’ve been known to heap praise on an article by a conservative Catholic American on this site, because it was an excellent article. By all means criticise the politics and the politicisation of science, but don’t think it can be done from a Right versus Left perspective. You alienate half the people you need to persuade.

    Hear, hear. Thank you, my thoughts exactly.

  65. Juraj V. (01:05:04) :
    First!!! 🙂
    Is it me, or there is a nice cold tongue forming along the Peruvian coast?
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

    It´s the cold Humboldt´s current surfacing, which BTW is normal for the peruvian coast. The abnormal is any El Nino event. So we are back to the 1960´s conditions, not completely yet. Those years were of a big fishing boom along these coasts.

  66. I wanna’ talk about weather, not climate or politics. We have had a very cold winter storm pound us for the past two days. I told people that I couldn’t recall such a cold early storm, and that it must be a record setter. Sure enough from NWS…
    A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 11 DEGREES WAS SET AT CHEYENNE WY
    YESTERDAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 15 SET IN 1970.

    Back to the ’70s, eh? I am not excited about this propect.

  67. gtrip (03:39:46) :
    tallbloke (03:32:40) :
    gtrip (03:14:47) :
    😉
    Wisdom falls on deaf ears 🙂 ….did I get the smiley thing right?
    —…—…—…—
    Depends on watt you you want yer smiley face to do.
    We’ve your basic winking smiley up there …
    A long-narrow-nosed smiley follows …
    But I wear glasses…. 8<)

  68. Temperatures can’t go up because a heat source is lowered or removed.
    All we are seeing is heat flow rates. The more dense materials (oceans) heat and cool slower than the less dense air.

  69. A comment left at Ann Althouse blog.
    Balfegor said…
    “This just reinforces my ongoing impression that we’ve been living out a satire for the past year or two. We elected a callow nobody as President on the strength of a few vacuous speeches. The healthcare debate — driving trillions of dollars in anticipated future expenditures — got turned around by comments someone scrawled on Facebook, and now the Nobel Peace Prize committee has decided to award prizes for good intentions. It’s like no one’s even serious about anything anymore. None of it matters. It’s the Society of the Spectacle.”
    The comment fits well with global warming.

  70. Like Geoff Chambers I am a left wing, radical atheist who doesn’t buy into AGW. It’s not about politics, it’s all about truth.

  71. The graphic at the top reminds me…
    A string walks into a bar. “Bartender, give me a drink!”
    The bartender kicks him out. “We don’t serve strings in here”.
    The string throws himself down, ties himself all up. Messes his hair (frays the top enf of the string) and walks back in.
    The bartender says. “Hey! Aren’t you that string I just threw out?!?”.
    The string says, “No… I’m a frayed knot”

  72. Well the Marxist Socialist British government has really gone & done it this time. Their new hard hitting advert aimed at adults, apparently 40% of us don’t think AGW will affect us. What they really mean is that at least 40% of us don’t believe in the nonsense dished out to us by government, NGO’s, Greenie religeous clap-trappers, & that hurts them more as a result. On BBC News this morning Joan Rubbish Ruddock was droning on about educating adults, & that half-wit presenter encouraging her by saying that it seemed that children were more aware of climate change than adults! Disgraceful, we have been illegally brainwashing our children with this green garbage which is a political opinion & therefore illegal in the UK, (but who cares about a little thing like that) for years that is why. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great & Northern Ireland (WARNING: MAY CONTAIN NUTS!).
    Lucy Skywalker (03:09:48) :
    Excellent BBC article – at last.
    Meanwhile, back at BBC Propaganda HQ………..
    “I say, Godfrey!”,
    “Yes Geoffrey?”
    “Don’t you think it’s about time this Paul Hudson fellow is….err…..re-assigned to a mroe suitable portfolio, like tackling UFOs?”
    “Indeed I do Geoffrey, I’ll see to it at once!”
    Bye bye Mr Hudson.

  73. gtrip.
    Good point about the rift between the agenda-driven far left (the Greens) and the political left who have stolen their clothes to hide their own nakedness. Except that in Europe it’s ALL the mainstream parties who are wearing green.
    I can forgive your ignorance of British politics, but what are you on about when you say “Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?” We English haven’t made any good popular music since John Dowland’s Bookes of Ayres in the 17th century. You can’t mean that pathetic aping of Black American music which began c1964 with those fab four insects? Pathetic parasitic parroting – a tick on the Hound Dog.

  74. How cold must it get before the populace cries “B.S.!” California is at least 10 degrees F below average. (approximately 6 deg C)
    http://www.calclim.dri.edu/cgi-bin/anomimage.pl?cal1mTvdep.gif
    Plus, our weather boffins predict California will be struck by a massive snow and rain storm for Tuesday next week – the remnant of super typhoon Mellor approaching from the Pacific.
    The first ski resort in California is already open (Boreal at Donner Summit), and Yosemite Valley has snow on the ground.
    And all this, while the CO2 keeps on climbing.

  75. This deserves a thread of it’s own.
    OSU ignores their own $9 million NSF-grant research.
    I’ll clairfy below. .
    I’ve raised this issue before where then OSU researcher/professor Jane Lubchenco fabricated and propagated a link between Oregon’s ocean dead zones and AGW.
    Even though her OSU research team “cautioned that they were unable to establish the extent of the link, if any, to global warming”
    Her fabrication, without science and contradicting her own work, was picked up and parroted around the globe by every science publication and more. Google it, it’s everywhere. So accepted is her farce that RC regulars argued that the link had been “established”.
    You know, RC, where real climate is discussed.
    It’s the ultimate example of phony science by scientists, publications and alarmist blogs.
    Lubcheno’s reward for her global warming myth was appointment to head NOAA.
    Well here we go again.
    Yesterday’s front page story in our Oregonian.
    http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/10/summer_dead_zones_off_oregon_c.html
    Lubcheno’s peers back at OSU are at it again.
    Again they are suggesting a global warming link when they have literally zero to support such notion.
    You may want to add a comment to that linked story/comment section when you read this.
    You see, OSU conducted a 5 year/$9 million NAS study (below) on Oregon’s dead zones.
    Lubchenco’s and Jack Barth’s research said in 2006 after the 5 year study completed with a prior $9 million.
    (An important thing to remember is they are new to this research and have no historical record to make any claims that this is a new phenomenon).
    OSU has apparently dismissed their own research as they echo global warming suggestions.
    That research “Team” identified the “jet stream”,
    a “volcanic seamount covering the entire dead zone” and
    “the team found that sub-Arctic waters flowing into Oregon” to be possible causes of the seasonal dead zones.
    NO GLOBAL WARMING
    Yet global warming overwhelms the truth.
    The story with the truth
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Oxygen-starved+sea+yields+clues+for+study-a0149622937
    The study, funded by a $9 million grant from the National Science Foundation, found variations in the jet stream may be involved.
    About once a month, the high winds in the atmosphere that make up the jet stream often wobble the research team found, changing the pattern of winds and the ocean’s response to them.
    “The central Oregon Coast is affected by weather systems tracking along the jet stream,” OSU oceanographer Jack Barth said. “When it moves to the north, we tend to get good upwelling. When it moves to the south, the upwelling goes bad.”
    The researchers sampled atmospheric conditions by plane and their effect on the ocean by boat.
    “That link wasn’t clear before, because we didn’t have the simultaneous sampling,” said Pat Wheeler, an OSU oceanographer and principal investigator on the study.
    In 2005, Barth said, the jet stream moved south, causing a delay in upwelling and problems for ocean species counting on the nutrients it brings to the water. Upwelling later rebounded dramatically, which led to this year’s dead zone.
    Another finding in the study involves the Heceta Bank, an underwater seamount (Large submarine volcanic mountain rising at least 3,000 ft (1,000 m) above the surrounding seafloor) about 10 miles wide that stretches from Florence to Newport on the coast – the same area where dead zones have been discovered in the past five years.
    The bank deflects north-south currents, scientists said, creating a still area in the ocean that incubates plankton. Shifts in the winds can either lead to severe upwelling or a lack thereof.
    Finally, the team found that sub-Arctic waters flowing into Oregon bring cold, nutrient-rich water from the north, which could explain some of the overloading of plankton that’s happened in recent years. In 2002, for example, several storms in the Gulf of Alaska brought sub-Arctic water into Oregon’s system, and a rush of nutrients along with it.

  76. vukcevic (05:08:38) :
    rbateman (03:58:46) :
    tallbloke (03:28:02) :
    Excellent thought process. Cold water sinks, warm water rises. The troubling questions are:
    1.) How long before the warm water is exhausted and
    2.) How far will climate then plummet when the warmth is spent?
    There is another component to it, particularly important for Artic Ocean. Hot waters of Gulf stream evaporates, increasing salinity, becomes heavy, sinks down; fresh waters of arctic rivers and ice melting are lighter and float on the top.
    http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/2005/12/halocline_18008.jpg

    Vuk, quite right. I commented on this in the
    Temperature correlated to the AMO as much as 4°C – potential for sea ice effect
    thread.
    The thing is though, some oceanologists argue the rise in salinity isn’t enough to overcome the density differential due to temperature, while others do. I think it may depend on the locale. Long and short of it is, the mechanism by which heat is vertically transported up and down inside the ocean is poorly understood in the large.

  77. I know others have already referenced this BBC article and it is also on Drudge. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is of extreme importance. It is very unusual for a mainstream media source such as the BBC to raise any doubts whatsoever about AGW.
    Therefore I suggest this article be posted as a discussion topic perhaps with a headline such as; “Is Main Stream Media Warming Up to Global Cooling?”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

  78. A minor question:
    In the recent McKitrick article, http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988&p=1, he states that the reason Mann revealed his full data was because of the rules of publication in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Yet on the wikipedia article titled Hockey_stick_controversy, it states that the reason was because of a congressional investigation and the questions of Rep. Joe Barton.
    Which is accurate?

  79. Roger Sowell (08:44:09) Apparently, the warming is very shrewd and only appears where there are no thermometers, and we have to extrapolate data to find it. Very clever indeed, ….. 8^]

  80. Taking a purely layman’s second look at AMSR-E sea ice chart a few days ago it occurred to me that the 2007 low was so far out of line with what had been happening over the previous years that that in itself argued against the contention that global warming was to blame.
    Even allowing for the various scare stories and assuming that the basic science is correct a sudden leap like that should surely have been put down to freak weather rather than anything else and the 2008 and 2009 results would seem to confirm that since recovery from an extreme event (especially one involving something as fragile as ice) is always going to be slower than the original event itself.
    Anyone think I’m reading this situation wrong?

  81. gtrip (05:45:22) :
    I was thinking more along the lines of “Supper’s Ready” and “Cinema Show”, which are definitely not not black influenced.

    Ah, now you’re talking. Mind you, Genesis went a bit soft after Peter Gabriel left. The Floyd took up the tiller of prog rock after that.

  82. Ok…now this is getting serious…
    Uncommon Cold
    “The cold temperature in Denver has forced the postponement of Game 3 of the NLDS between the Phillies and Rockies.
    A cold front moved into Denver overnight, dropping temperatures into the teens with record lows for the date. Coors Field was covered with a thin layer of snow and ice Saturday morning and flurries were expected to continue through the night. “
    (emphasis added)
    source: ESPN online at http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/mlb/index

  83. Children have a 100% chance of facing dire consequence of runaway government spending and Federal Reserve irresponsibility. Children have a .001% chance of dire consequences due to man-made global warming.

  84. tallbloke (09:41:55) :
    The Floyd…
    What exactly was it that happened between David Gilmour and Roger Waters?

  85. Roger Sowell (10:09:03) :
    Early snow and cold forecast for the northern central USA :
    If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago
    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/No-Kidding-Snow-on-Sunday–63751227.html
    …temperatures will fail to climb above freezing this weekend, which is almost unheard of so early in the season.
    http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=3

  86. AlanG says:

    In the last 100 years CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 380 ppm, an increase of about 100 ppm. The Earth’s temperature has gone up by 0.6C. Both figures are disputed but these are the figures used by most scientists. The consensus is that the temperature rise is due to the increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.
    However, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. This is accepted by all scientists.

    Correct.

    In order to get a further temperature rise of 0.6C, CO2 will have to increase by another 200 ppm, or twice as much before. Another +0.6C after that would require an additional 400 ppm and so on.

    Nope. That is not how a logarithmic function works [like T = A log(C/C_0) where C is the final concentration, C_0 is the initial concentration, T is the temperature, and A is a constant]. How it works is that the rise from 280ppm to 380ppm was an increase of 36%. So, it then takes another 36% increase from 380ppm, which is another ~136 ppm to cause the next 0.6 C temperature rise. And, then another ~188 ppm to cause the next 0.6 C temperature rise after that.
    However, there are more fundamental problems with this argument: One is that it ignores the fact that, because the oceans have such a large thermal inertia, the earth is still out of radiative balance and there is warming “in the pipeline” that would occur even if CO2 levels were held constant. Another problem is that it neglects the cooling effects of the aerosols that we have emitted (and, admittedly, also the warming effects of some of the other greenhouse gases like CH4 and nitrous oxide). At the end of the day, it turns out that, because of these uncertainties (particularly the uncertainty in the aerosol forcing), the 20th century temperature record does not provide a very good constraint on the climate sensitivity. Better constraints are provided by combining it with other empirical data such as the climate response to the Mt Pinatubo eruption and the climate change from the last glacial maximum to now.
    [quote]
    When will CO2 reach another 200ppm? Not in your lifetime. Another 400 ppm after that looks impossible because there isn’t enough coal, oil and gas in the world to do that.[/quote]
    Not sure where you are getting this information from, but in fact this paper in the peer-reviewed literature says that there are enough conventional reserves to get the CO2 levels up to 1200ppm and enough conventional + exotic reserves (like tar sands) to get it up to 4000ppm.
    I believe CO2 levels are currently increasing about 2ppm / yr. However, that rate has been increasing over time as our emissions have increased. Note that even an increase of only 2% per year in emissions means that they would double in ~35 years.

    What’s more, most of the temperature increase has been in Siberia, in winter and at night. This is as expected. The temperature where most people live has hardly changed at all.

    Yes, the arctic region is warming faster than the rest of the world. However, it is also true that the warming is expected to be greater on the continents (especially the continental interiors) than the oceans…and since the world is 70% oceans, that means the warming on continents can be significantly larger.
    And, of course, it is the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica that are expected to contribute the most to sea level rise beyond that just due to the thermal expansion of the ocean water itself.

  87. So then, have the ‘smart guys’ agreed on the ‘date’ of the solar minimum yet?
    Or are they moving the goalposts?
    P.S. sunspot count: ZERO.

  88. gtrip (01:41:30) “The Left is moving forward with the belief that the science is settled.”
    No. This issue does not divide along left-right lines.

  89. Pedro X (04:21:52) “If the main stream media starts to cover the skeptics fairly it will cause problems for the AGW alarmists beofore Copenhagen.”
    What do you mean “if”? The wave is underway.

  90. Don’t get your hopes up about the BBC. They’ll jump back on the global warming bandwagon quicker than it takes you to blink twice. Jo Abbess is probably writing threats to them right now too, so perhaps 1.5 blinks is all it takes.

  91. Harold Ambler (06:13:20) :
    October 9, 2011
    (Associated Press)
    OSLO — President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the third consecutive time on Friday for his “continuous efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples and in recognition of his two acceptance speeches at previous awards ceremonies.”
    “After much analysis, those of us on the committee realized that we were unwilling to listen to anyone else give an acceptance speech,” said Nobel awards director Paar Svinborg. “After his first speech, during which every committee member wept, we didn’t see how he could out-do himself. And then there was last year.”
    […]
    The Nobel committee declined to release the names of the other formal nominees, citing the “shame factor.”
    “Well, in a normal year, everyone gets at least a few votes,” said Svinborg. “That makes it easy for the nominees who don’t win. But, so far, no one else has earned any votes when Obama has been on the ballot.”
    Asked how he assessed the chances of the award being made permanent, over the president’s objections, Svinborg shrugged his shoulders knowingly and appeared to smirk.
    “Does that mean ‘yes,’ Mr. Chairman?” a reporter asked.
    “It doesn’t mean no,” Svinborg said.

    What is your reference for this questionable story? There is no such person “Paar Svinborg” on the Nobel committee (“Paar” isn’t a name at all and “Svinborg” translates into “Pork Borg”).
    These are the real committee members
    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/
    The Chairman is Thorbjørn Jagland, admittedly not the “sharpest knife in the drawer” as we say here.
    Make no mistake about it, I think this years peace price is a big mistake by the committe (as was the one awarded to Al Gore), but any criticism should be fact based.
    I welcomed Obamas election last year, but the Nobel Peace price could have waited at least another 3 years, assuming he had actually done something for peace by then.

  92. Michael (10:43:13) :
    Denver shattered a 100 year old record low after dropping to 17 degrees Saturday morning. The old record was 25 degrees dating back to 1905.
    It leaves everyone asking, “Where is global warming?”.

  93. As to believing in global warming, I would believe if the arctic ocean ice free each year and the antarctic winter ice below average each year. These are large, hard to fake data.
    As to the arctic, it looks like to me, the winds are generally from siberia to canada, the is open water between siberia and canada. This is keeping the temperature up.
    Also, the sibernian snow cover looks a few weeks late to me.

  94. Sasha (09:14:26) :
    I think you are confuising Mann and Briffa. It was the latter who made the mistake of publishing in the RPS.

  95. Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:47:43),
    I just heard that the Nobel committee had voted by secret ballot for 0bama last February — only eleven days after 0bama was elected.
    At that time 0bama had no governing experience, no military experience, no foreign policy experience, no economic experience, no business experience, no medical experience, no trade experience, no energy experience, etc. He was 100% experience challenged.
    Since you’re more familiar than I am with the process, can you explain how awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who had done nothing, and had zero experience, was justified?
    Even if the prize was voted on today, the only ‘success’ 0bama has had is in enormously raising our national debt by shoveling money to cronies, rather than returning it to taxpayers where it would have directly helped the economy, and by having the government start to run car companies.
    The folks who elected this incompetent know-nothing as their own personal apology for slavery have let their emotions rule their thinking. They will surely regret it as time goes by.

  96. I second what Geoff has written: “Except that in Europe it’s ALL the mainstream parties who are wearing green”. Here in the UK, this is definitely the case, with little difference between Conservative, Labour and LibDem policies. The only political party openly sceptical about AGW is, as far as I know, UKIP (not mainstream yet, but gaining ground.)
    I don’t think there’s a lack of scepticism here about AGW, just a lack of a focal point to rally round. People have tended to go along with “green” measures as long as they were innocuous and money-saving. For instance, I took advantage of a government discount on loft insulation. To save the planet? No, because it was cheap and to reduce my energy bills. It’s when people become aware that the “greener” way is going to cost them dearly, that they will sit up and take notice.
    P Gosselin (02:11:30) : “I don’t see any tea parties in Britain, except the kind you have at 4 p.m.”
    We’re a little slow to get going, Pierre, I’ll allow, over here. But when we do get going, it’s certainly a sight to see. Watch this space.

  97. Eric (skeptic) (06:52:23) :
    tallbloke
    Without the calculations, is there some way to physically explain ocean heat release mode? My only knowledge as a starting point is that solar heating of the oceans is and should still be decreasing. Also since everything is nonuniform, there will be places with more and less solar heating and places with more and less heat release which should also affect ocean currents and winds.

    Eric, firstly, my findings are forming a hypothesis, which is open to falsification, others will probably disagree with my analysis of the situation. With that caveat, here goes.
    According to the numbers I’ve been working on, which include calculations involving the sea level rise attributed to thermal expansion, the lapse rate between the sea surface and thermocline, and the sunspot number added as a cumulative series, the oceans have an equilibrium point at which they neither gain nor lose heat.
    By my current reckoning, this is around 40 sunspots/month.
    For the last few years, the sunspot count has been well below that, and sure enough, the ocean heat content, according to the custodian of the ARGO data, there has been a ‘slight cooling’.
    I also discovered that there is something else affecting global temperature. I’m not sure which of several variables it is, but it seems that a couple of time series are a reasonably good proxy for it. One of them is the changes in Length of Day, the other is the geomagnetic record.
    As you correctly point out, there will be localities where the trend is opposite, but as an overall global average thing, my data and method is ablle to reproduce the history of global temperature over the last 100 years with surprising accuracy.
    Because the sunspot number is a dimensionless thing (though it relates to TSI which can be quantified, and because the clouds seem to be an amplifier of solar influence (probably via the Svensmark effect), I cannot state with any certainty that the parameters I work with can provide a full explanation for temperature change. However, the plus side of this is that my model is flexible, and can accommodate new data and other factors.
    You have to start somewhere.

  98. Lucy Skywalker (03:09:48) “Excellent BBC article – at last. “What Happened to Global Warming?”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
    “Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.””
    I wouldn’t call the underlying wave a 30 year wave. Here’s a look at the phasing in units of pi radians:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/MorletPi_PhaseJN-r…png
    Some of you will easily realize the sideband-envelopes are not centred on a 30 year wave. (See Sidorenkov & Barkin for more insight.)

  99. “Mike Jonas (06:00:03) :
    “If you have something worth posting on the front page, flag a moderator.”
    How do I flag a moderator? I’ve done an analysis of all monthly maximum temperatures at all (29) Australian weather stations with a 100+ year record. (Like the one Anthony(?) did a while ago on the US ones.)
    Prompted by what I found, the following letter is going in the mail tomorrow, to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (”BOM”). (The contact details on their website appear not to include email addresses)”
    You will have a more receptive audience here than with the BOM. I hope the mods pick up on this.
    [Reply: Anthony always reads Tips ‘n’ Notes. ~dbs, mod.]

  100. Smokey (11:00:05) :

    I just heard that the Nobel committee had voted by secret ballot for 0bama last February — only eleven days after 0bama was elected.

    Without a reference it is impossible to know where that rumor came from. It sounds very unlikely to me.
    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/who-can-nominate/
    “The Committee does not itself announce the names of nominees. In so far as certain names crop up in the advance speculations as to who will receive the year’s Prize, this is either sheer guesswork or information put out by the person or persons behind the nomination. Information in the Nobel Committee’s nominations data base is not made public until after fifty years.”

    Since you’re more familiar than I am with the process, can you explain how awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who had done nothing, and had zero experience, was justified?

    To say I am “familiar with the process” is an overstatement, I just happen to live the the same country as the committee.
    This is their announcement for this year’s prize:
    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/
    In addition to what is written there, I can only speculate that they wanted to somehow give him a “flying start”. If so, I think it is not a very good idea as it waters down the value of the prize.
    They say: “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”
    Ahem…. given what we know about climate science, that isn’t something I support (an understatement).
    In summary, this prize was premature, as a minimum.

  101. Folks need to consider that it is unconstitutional for an elected official to accept titles or emoluments from foreign powers without congressional approval. If Obama accepts the Nobel while in office he commits treason (as has any other president who accepted it while in office) unless congress passes an act permitting him to do so.
    Then again, considering historians have now documented that the Titles of Nobility amendment (what would have been the 13th Amendment had the British not destroyed federal records when they invaded DC during the War of 1812) was properly passed by enough states to become part of the US Constitution. This would strip the citizenship from any person accepting a title (including a mere “Esquire” or “Nobel Laureate) or other emolument from a foreign prince or power (the American Bar Association is a franchise of the International Bar Association, chartered by the Queen of England).

  102. Carsten, you did notice the date on this ‘story’ (2011)?

    Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:47:43) :

    Harold Ambler (06:13:20) :
    October 9, 2011
    (Associated Press)
    OSLO — President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the third consecutive time on Friday for his “continuous efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples and in recognition of his two acceptance speeches at previous awards ceremonies.”

    Humor; a parody on the recent (comedic tragedy) event …
    .
    .

  103. Gene Nemetz (10:56:45) :
    “Cap N Trade not called Cap N Trade anymore :
    John Kerry now calls it :
    “The Pollution Reduction and Investment Incentive Mechanism”.”
    Here’s another good one I renamed.
    US Surveillance and Rights Reduction Act aka Patriot Act
    We will change the name of any act passed by congress to more accurately reflect the contents of any act up for a vote or passed by congress!
    You don’t have to refer to a misnamed act by congresses given name. You can rename any act to it’s truthful descriptive name.
    We should have a poll on what the proper name of any act should be, up for a vote or passed by congress.

  104. 10Be remedial for interested bystanders?
    If one measure for Galactic Cosmic Rays is 10Be in ice cores, I am interested in whether there are other sources for this elemental anomaly.
    I found 1. a weakening of the earth’s magnetic field (don’t know if that has to coincide with less solar activity) and 2. possible meteoritic or large aerial bursts sources
    Also, Dr. Svalgaard described the process of getting from N or O to 10Be on another thread. He said that cosmic ray spallation knocked particles out of the atom’s nucleus. I do not quite understand why this does not release a lot of energy. Hopefully I am not having one of my blond moments with that question.

  105. Michael (11:37:00) :
    We will change the name of any act passed by congress to more accurately reflect the contents of any act up for a vote or passed by congress!

    Maybe the corporates could go for sponsorship deals. So Cap n Trade becomes
    Pollution Reduction Incentive – United States, or PRIUS.

  106. Squirrles are NUTS!
    I have to leave Phoenix tomorrow.
    It’s been a GLORIOUS week here. 83 to 88 highs, and that only for about 3 to 4 hours (1PM to 3PM or 4PM).
    Lows at night, 57 to 62. Actually wear a light jacket on the way to the ‘park’ (Mother’s mobile home park) Hot Tub.
    Flying back to MINNESOCOLD ,where it will be 36 to 38 F when I arrive. Burrrrr…. I’ll force myself out on my road bike, just to make sure I don’t “chicken out”.
    Clearly 4 to 6 weeks EARLY on winter this year. Snow in Chicago on Monday.
    Rockies are covered with 3 to 4′ of snow above 4000′ now. Saw that on the way down to PHX..
    Strangely I’ve noted that:
    A. My oak trees are overgrown with acorns this year. (Maybe cutting off their funding will help?)
    B. The squirrels have been inordinately active burying the acorns.
    I interviewed a bunch of the squirrels recently and the mere mention of Al Gore brought a bombardment of acorns. (Fortunately they can’t throw worth a darn, so it didn’t hurt.) But the squirrels said, “Look, we are SEMI hibernators. Why do you think we’ve already lined the nests with all the extra leafs we can, and why do you think your yard looks like an old Soviet minefield? GET A GRIP, you are going to have “snow covered pumpkins” once again?” (reference to 1991, Halloween snow storm. Remarkable memory for animals that have life spans like NFL players!)
    So, I know..not very analytical. Hey, I’m just trying to learn to think/speak like an “alarmist”. Only this alarm is for “Gorebull Freezing”.
    Let’s talk, about Dec.20th?
    Mark Hugoson

  107. It is presently 56 on my back deck here in Anchorage, AK and all the snow up in the mountains in front of my house has melted. I’m loving it by the way. In a week or so I suspect that the Jet Stream will shift and temps will get back to normal here and in the rest of the US. I base this suspicion not on forecasts but a schedule that says I will be starting a couple of weeks of work involving tower climbing near Fairbanks week after next.

  108. Last October I posited here that if global warming continued as it has been, then we’d see the World Series played in snow suits. Prescient or what! Yours in coldness …

  109. Obama has just won another prize with absolutely no qualifications for it. But he did say some pretty good stuff about saving whales and polar bears before he was announced the winner.
    I’m talking about the title of Miss World of course.

  110. Carsten Arnholm,
    I did a quick search and this came up:

    206 people were nominated for the prize by the deadline of Feb. 1, 2009 when Mr. Obama had been in office just eleven days. But today it was announced in Oslo, Norway that President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his “outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.” The great man had done all these miracles in just eleven days? [source]

    I’ve never seen that blog before, but I did hear the same thing on the news and on the radio yesterday.

  111. Tom Fuller (13:13:14) :
    Hi all. I have just accepted Joe Romm’s bet about temperatures ten years out. I could use a bit of moral support (and free publicity–I want to push him into a weblog debate). http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m10d10-Global-warming-Joe-Romm-and-famous-wagers

    Tom, Romm offered mr Cru as the arbitrating data and no volcano caveats, but backed out when I accepted. Good luck agreeing terms with this flip flop.

  112. Note!
    The global warming Talibans at the BBC have not display the article “What happened to global warming?” at their news section or at the top in their science & environment section, which they usually do for new articles.
    Instead they have hid it down, in the middle of the page.
    They apparently want to publish this article without letting it get to much attention from visitors.
    It will be interesting to see, for how long it will be visible on their website and it will be interesting to see if this story is picked up by other MSM outlets.
    Have anybody seen this story on BBC TV news?

  113. Joel Shore (10:35:32) : “…because the oceans have such a large thermal inertia, the earth is still out of radiative balance and there is warming “in the pipeline” that would occur even if CO2 levels were held constant.
    Wrong. The oceans stopped warming around 2003, and are now cooling. There is NO warming “in the pipeline”.
    http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
    A Josh Willis (NASA) paper (2007 I think) said the same thing – the one where he said the oceans were cooling, then found instrument errors and corrected it to “not warming”.
    “Not warming” means no warming in the pipeline.

  114. Personally I think that it is the barycentric modulation of the chem trails that is causing the global everything. (When the cats away)
    They just showed the climate porn act on CO2 advert again. Gonna get photoshop loaded and will have a T shirt based on the drowning dog printed on Monday. Glad that I am big enough to defend myself.

  115. I think there’s too much ice on the south pole and this is going to make the earth’s orbit start to go irregular and then wobble out of control and we’ll all be slug into outer space.

  116. As regards President Obama, it’s just an example of reverse discrimination.
    We have to assuage our past sins don’t we ?
    Never mind suitability for the job/prize.
    Mind you I was supportive of his appointment because if he does well it will help us all and if he fails then perhaps guilt based decisions will become less popular.
    I wish him well.

  117. Miles (16:06:13) :
    “I think there’s too much ice on the south pole …”
    Actually all that weight at the south pole keeps our orbit nice and stable. Just imagine if Antarctica was at the top – it would all flip over. And then where would we be? I’d have to hold my beer upside down for a start…

  118. I just looked at the Ap geomagnetic index, the Oulu neutron counter, and the sunspot count.
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
    Ap geomagnetic index
    dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep
    4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 3
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
    Oulu Neutorn monitor has hit a new peak in the last week
    Spaceweather.com
    Sunspots – spotless days
    2009 total: 220 days (78%) Since 2004: 731 days
    Typical Solar Min: 485 days
    Since global cooling will first appear in the centers of the large NH landmasses with their low thermal storage, I am predicting a cold winter in Minnesota. 1/2 inch of snow on the ground this morning.


  119. Stephen Wilde (16:07:47) :

    We have to assuage our past sins don’t we ?

    No; clearly, this should only involve individual flagellation with a cat o’ nine tails ONLY if so inclined … otherwise, learn how to accept forgiveness and change your future (for SURELY you cannot change the past!).
    .
    .
    .

  120. Joel Shore (10:35:32) :
    There’s some confusion of the term logarithmic as applied to c02. the first 50ppm of c02 absorbs the radiation avaiable to it. adding further quantities doesn’t increase temperature, as the saturation window closes. It works on th esame principle as a piece of tissue put into a bath of water. When it has soaked all it can its saturation window closes and it can’t absorb any more water. Doubling it to 2 tissues and the saturation window closes at the same point, so it doesn’t absorb any more water.
    A better and more appropriate analogy would be sunblock. a factor 5 would screen against some ultraviolet rays. doubling the quantity wouldn’t increase it to factor 10. It would only increase the distance – very fractionally, at which the same rays were absorbed.
    In the climate, a doubling of c02 would only decrease the distance at which the heat it intercepts is absorbed. It doesn’t change the temperature.
    it is similar to temperature principle. Adding a litre of water at 45C to a litre of water at 10C wouldn’t produce 2 litres of water at 55C

  121. Mike Jonas says:

    Wrong. The oceans stopped warming around 2003, and are now cooling. There is NO warming “in the pipeline”.

    “Not warming” means no warming in the pipeline.

    The ocean heat content data, while not quite as noisy as the air temperature data, still has its ups-and-downs…plus it is not as well-sampled and they are still trying to sort out possible systematic errors / inconsistencies (although the paper you linked to thinks they have made progress on that). So, no, I don’t think a few years of low rise in ocean heat content means that there is no warming in the pipeline.

  122. P Wilson says:

    In the climate, a doubling of c02 would only decrease the distance at which the heat it intercepts is absorbed. It doesn’t change the temperature.

    No…That is not how it works. As you change the concentration of CO2, you increase the effective radiating level from which emission escapes to space (*) and because the temperature is a decreasing function of height in the troposphere and because the amount of radiation emitted is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, this means less radiation escapes to space. This results in a radiative imbalance and as a response, the climate system warms until radiative balance is restored.
    All of this radiative stuff was understood back in the 1950s, as discussed here http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm , so you are only about half a century behind the times here.
    (*) This effective radiating level is worth a little more explanation: Basically, if you look at a plot that shows where the radiation that escapes to space comes from, you have a somewhat bell-shaped curve with a maximum at some altitude that is the effective radiating level. The reason for the maximum is that radiation emitted from a low level is unlikely to escape to space without being absorbed and there just isn’t very much radiation emitted from a very high level both because there is less atmosphere up there to absorb the heat and because it is colder and hence emits less. In between, there is a “sweet spot”. So, as you increase the concentration of the greenhouse gases, it is really this whole bell-shaped curve that will shift upward a little bit in altitude, but we can summarize this verbally by just saying that the effective radiating level shifted up.

  123. In any event the slow & steady increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (fact) and a 1~2-degC global temperature rise in coming 50 years or so (still a hypothesis, unfortunately) are definitely a godsend to us humans, since both surely contribute to an increase in food production because everything (except water and salt) on our dining table originates in plant photosynthesis which is more active at elevated CO2 concentration and higher temperature (of course up to a certain level).
    In Japan about 5000 people per year on average relocate from mainland (though quite tiny as compared US) to Okinawa, seeking more livable conditions in the place where average temperature is by ca. 7 degC higher than Tokyo.
    As a 30-year researcher of photosynthesis I foresee no detrimental effect of the slowly rising temperature on crop yield since we could quite easily cope with it by changing, if necessary, the crop species. A warming by 1-2 degC in half a century is NO PROBLEM.

  124. I want to revisit the thing about how a gas cannot trap heat, so to speak. They can absorb and re emit. In the case of CO2, three separate frequencies with a narrow bandwidth response. 15.7 microns is one that jumps to mind. Anyway, what is important to remember is that the gas does not get to “choose” which direction it emits toward. CO2 does not have the “evil” ability to direct heat only back toward the troposphere and the Earth’s surface, it will re-emit its absorbed heat in any direction, including back out into space. Just as clouds do, though clouds, by their construction and shear mass and opacity have a wider response and account for almost all heating and cooling as far as gases go. Even so, this effect results in something of a negative feedback.

  125. Here’s a list of people who were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I know who I would have voted for. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/meet_the_people_who_were_passe.asp (N.b., I’m assuming this is an accurate list. I haven’t checked any other websites yet but I got the link from an Aussie newspaper so I hope it’s the correct list!)
    And here are some awards that Pres. Obama will surely win shortly if he hasn’t already won … http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelligencerreport/rightwing147.html It brought a smile to my face 😉 Now to think up some more titles, awards, achievements for the Obamas… *cheeky grin*

  126. Joel Shore (18:05:51) :
    “I don’t think a few years of low rise in ocean heat content means that there is no warming in the pipeline.”
    That would be correct… if there was a ‘low rise in ocean heat content.’ But there isn’t.
    In fact, the ARGO buoy network shows ocean cooling: click.
    Not one real world event that the alarmist contingent has pointed to that supposedly proves its runaway global warming cognitive dissonance has panned out: there is no ocean warming; no mysterious ‘heat in the pipeline’; no AGW-caused coral bleaching, no drowning polar bears, no ocean acidification, no abnormal sea ice declines, no walruses dying of heat stroke, no rising global temperatures, nor any of the thousand other global warming catastrophes they predict.
    So who are we going to listen to? The increasingly wacked-out alarmist crowd? Or Mother Earth — who knows she is cooling, even as her beneficial trace gas CO2 rises?
    The planet’s verdict gets my vote.

  127. Joel Shore (18:18:43) :
    The link only goes to a pro AGW website, which is bound to put man at the centre of the debate. In fact, how I described is precisely how it works, impartially.

  128. The following quote is from the DMI website. The strange side tracings on the temperature curve in Anthony’s link to the right seem to be adjusting due to something other than direct temperature measurement. I am wondering if these up and down wriggles are because of cloud interference?
    “Satellite observations of sea surface temperature is currently retrieved from several satellites. The most accurate infrared satellites have an pixel size of 1 km and an accuracy of 0.3 degrees but they are limited by clouds. DMI has developed a statistical method that uses the individual error characteristics to combine satellite observations from about 10 different instruments in an objective interpolation method. The satellite observations include polar orbiting infrared and microwave sensors as well as geostationary satellite observations and are obtained through the Ocean & Sea Ice SAF project and the GHRSST-pp project. One field is produced every day, based upon nighttime observations, and the spatial resolution is 0.03 for the North Sea/Baltic Sea domain and 0.05 degrees for the other domains. To see todays images of Sea Surface Temperature, click here. For information on the method, see http://ocean.dmi.dk/staff/jlh/jlh.html.
    …………………………………..
    Contact: Jacob L. Høyer
    jlh@dmi.dk

  129. what is important are temperatures and physics . Whilst its true that any “global warming” or “global cooling” occurs at surface-near surface there isn’t any “global warming beyond this region, as optimum radiaion is already absorbed there. IE- it cannot be added to.

  130. ron from Texas (18:49:01) :

    CO2 does not have the “evil” ability to direct heat only back toward the troposphere and the Earth’s surface, it will re-emit its absorbed heat in any direction, including back out into space.

    True; CO2 could cause negative feedback.
    Incoming solar radiation heads directly toward the Earth. But when a photon is intercepted by a CO2 molecule, the almost instantaneous re-emission of a photon from the same molecule might go down to the surface. Or, it might go straight back up into space.
    Thus, CO2 is taking some of the incoming solar radiation that would otherwise strike the Earth, and sending it back into space. Ergo, negative feedback. And the more CO2, the more cooling.

  131. incidentally, none of this explains how c02 which absorbs heat in the 13-16 micron range can absorb temperatures ranging from 15C-30C – which are the lowwer and higher end of earth average temps

  132. Joel Shore (18:18:43) :
    BS^^4 AGW violates the Second law of Thermodynamics: somehow the cooler air forces the already warmer earth to increase its temperature even more?? That would ONLY be possible if CO2 were a one-way mirror at IR frequencies!

  133. ron from Texas says:

    CO2 does not have the “evil” ability to direct heat only back toward the troposphere and the Earth’s surface, it will re-emit its absorbed heat in any direction, including back out into space.

    And, who exactly was arguing otherwise?
    Smokey says:

    True; CO2 could cause negative feedback.
    Incoming solar radiation heads directly toward the Earth. But when a photon is intercepted by a CO2 molecule, the almost instantaneous re-emission of a photon from the same molecule might go down to the surface. Or, it might go straight back up into space.
    Thus, CO2 is taking some of the incoming solar radiation that would otherwise strike the Earth, and sending it back into space. Ergo, negative feedback. And the more CO2, the more cooling.

    The point that you are missing is that the radiation from the sun is mainly at visible (and near-infrared and near-UV) wavelengths where CO2 does not have much absorption, whereas the emission from the Earth is at infrared wavelengths where CO2 has considerable absorption. That is the feature of the greenhouse gases…They are nearly transparent to solar radiation but quite strongly absorbing of IR radiation.

  134. Anyone here who has a line to the Nobel Prize committee? I’d just like to express my contempt for them and my questions as to how a race of men who could row Arctic oceans, see the new world, settle Iceland, become the palace guard of the Ottoman empire, establish trade over 90% of the known world and colonize numerous places, produce a race of people who make Volvos and Socialism. Is this possible? Any Anthropologists ready to do a study about what happened to testostorone in Scandanavia?

  135. Dave Dodd says:

    BS^^4 AGW violates the Second law of Thermodynamics: somehow the cooler air forces the already warmer earth to increase its temperature even more?? That would ONLY be possible if CO2 were a one-way mirror at IR frequencies!

    You guys really don’t do your reputation in the scientific community any good by perpetuating these crazy claims of Gerlich and Tscheuschner. What the Second Law says is that the NET heat flow between two objects at different temperatures must be from the hotter to the colder. However, the NET heat flow under the atmospheric greenhouse effect is from the (warmer) earth’s surface to the (colder) upper troposphere as required by the Second Law.
    This may seem like it contradicts the idea of the upper troposphere is making the surface warmer than it would otherwise be but the confusion lies in what the comparative case is, namely, the case of no greenhouse effect where the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation and all of what the earth radiates would escape into space. So, the fact that the upper troposphere returns any of the heat to the earth causes warming relative to the case where it all escapes to space, even if only a small fraction of what the upper troposphere receives is returned to the earth.
    The concept is basically that of a heat shield. (Or, roughly speaking, a blanket…although that analogy here is less precise since a blanket operates less by inhibiting radiation as it does by inhabiting convection. Still the basic idea still applies of having something at a cooler temperature nonetheless keep a warmer object warmer than it otherwise would be if the blanket were not present.)

  136. Joel Shore (20:59:43):
    “The point that you are missing is that the radiation from the sun is mainly…”
    Horse manure. If CO2 intercepts some of the incoming solar energy and then re-radiates part of it into outer space, then CO2 has a cooling effect.
    Deal with it.

  137. P Wilson says:

    incidentally, none of this explains how c02 which absorbs heat in the 13-16 micron range can absorb temperatures ranging from 15C-30C – which are the lowwer and higher end of earth average temps

    Strangely enough, this claim is contradicted by looking at a plot closely related to one that you linked to in another thread: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png There is in fact considerable blackbody emission in that range both for objects at the surface temperature of the earth and the lower temperatures up higher in the atmosphere. And even the CO2 absorption line at ~4 microns plays a role, albeit a smaller one.
    [And, by the way, Smokey, this plot shows you more quantitatively how CO2 absorbs very little solar radiation. Water vapor absorbs a fair bit more…although still a lot less than it absorbs of terrestrial IR radiation.]

  138. Joel Shore (10:35:32) :
    “AlanG says:
    In the last 100 years CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 380 ppm, an increase of about 100 ppm. The Earth’s temperature has gone up by 0.6C. Both figures are disputed but these are the figures used by most scientists. The consensus is that the temperature rise is due to the increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.
    However, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. This is accepted by all scientists.
    Correct.
    In order to get a further temperature rise of 0.6C, CO2 will have to increase by another 200 ppm, or twice as much before. Another +0.6C after that would require an additional 400 ppm and so on.
    Nope. That is not how a logarithmic function works [like T = A log(C/C_0) where C is the final concentration, C_0 is the initial concentration, T is the temperature, and A is a constant]. How it works is that the rise from 280ppm to 380ppm was an increase of 36%. So, it then takes another 36% increase from 380ppm, which is another ~136 ppm to cause the next 0.6 C temperature rise. And, then another ~188 ppm to cause the next 0.6 C temperature rise after that.
    However, there are more fundamental problems with this argument: One is that it ignores the fact that, because the oceans have such a large thermal inertia, the earth is still out of radiative balance and there is warming “in the pipeline” that would occur even if CO2 levels were held constant. Another problem is that it neglects the cooling effects of the aerosols that we have emitted (and, admittedly, also the warming effects of some of the other greenhouse gases like CH4 and nitrous oxide). At the end of the day, it turns out that, because of these uncertainties (particularly the uncertainty in the aerosol forcing), the 20th century temperature record does not provide a very good constraint on the climate sensitivity. Better constraints are provided by combining it with other empirical data such as the climate response to the Mt Pinatubo eruption and the climate change from the last glacial maximum to now.
    [quote]
    When will CO2 reach another 200ppm? Not in your lifetime. Another 400 ppm after that looks impossible because there isn’t enough coal, oil and gas in the world to do that.[/quote]
    Not sure where you are getting this information from, but in fact this paper in the peer-reviewed literature says that there are enough conventional reserves to get the CO2 levels up to 1200ppm and enough conventional + exotic reserves (like tar sands) to get it up to 4000ppm.
    I believe CO2 levels are currently increasing about 2ppm / yr. However, that rate has been increasing over time as our emissions have increased. Note that even an increase of only 2% per year in emissions means that they would double in ~35 years.
    What’s more, most of the temperature increase has been in Siberia, in winter and at night. This is as expected. The temperature where most people live has hardly changed at all.
    Yes, the arctic region is warming faster than the rest of the world. However, it is also true that the warming is expected to be greater on the continents (especially the continental interiors) than the oceans…and since the world is 70% oceans, that means the warming on continents can be significantly larger.
    And, of course, it is the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica that are expected to contribute the most to sea level rise beyond that just due to the thermal expansion of the ocean water itself”.
    Joel Shore, AlanG,
    You are neglecting the facts.
    There is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
    Read the 10 myth’s about CO2 and stop building castles in the air.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/h-leighton-steward-ten-myths-about-co2/
    Also read: Save the planet, kill yourself
    http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/10/saving-earth-by-hating-humanity.html

  139. Smokey says:

    Horse manure. If CO2 intercepts some of the incoming solar energy and then re-emits part of it into outer space, then CO2 has a cooling effect.

    And, the gravitational force due to my mass has an affect on that plate sitting across the room. But, it ain’t a very large effect and can safely be ignored. At any rate, I am quite sure that if these effects are found to be at all reasonable then they are included in the radiative calculations.
    I have no clue what the point you are trying to make is.

  140. Joel Shore (21:08:33) :
    Dave Dodd says:
    BS^^4 AGW violates the Second law of Thermodynamics: somehow the cooler air forces the already warmer earth to increase its temperature even more?? That would ONLY be possible if CO2 were a one-way mirror at IR frequencies!
    You guys really don’t do your reputation in the scientific community any good by perpetuating these crazy claims of Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
    Sorry, I don’t claim any “reputation in the scientific community.” I have no idea who Gerlich and Tscheuschner are, but I DO have six decades of empirical evidence that heat ALWAYS flows from the warmer medium to the cooler.
    It should be noted that the “greenhouse effect” itself does not exist within a glass greenhouse: no radiation is trapped therein to heat the air, the trapped air is simply heated by convection from the contained solid surfaces (which are heated by absorbing the sun’s IR radiation). That fact is readily discerned since the air temperature can never exceed that of the warmest surface within the “greenhouse”, or closed car, or steel storage tank, for that matter.
    If the trapped air were somehow warmer than any of the solid surfaces, our energy worries would be over! That is exactly what you claim atmospheric CO2 does: in your view, there is more heat energy in the atmosphere when the sun shines than there is in the solid structure of the earth. Or put another way, the downwelling IR (from CO2 re-radiation) should show a diurnal cycle.
    I say balderdash! Show me the diurnal signal in the downwelling IR for ANY location on the earth — it AIN’T there! Nor is AGW a demonstrable (falsifiable) hypothesis as required by the Scientific Method. AGW is therefore BS to the 4th power!

  141. I’m with Smokey. The Sun irradiates the Earth with an awful lot more 15 micron IR radiation each day than the Earth attempts to emit at night. So the AGW argument says that at night the emitted 15 micron radiation is absorbed by CO2 and because it is emitted in a random direction only half escapes to space and the rest slows night-time cooling.
    If this process is climatically relevant, then it’s effect during the day would be to reradiate half the Sun’s incoming 15 micron infra-red straight back to space before it could warm the Earth.
    So Smokey is right, Any greenhouse or blanket effect keeping infra-red in at night must be keeping out an awful lot more from the day’s sunlight.

  142. Joel Shore (21:37:59) :
    Smokey says:
    At any rate, I am quite sure that if these effects are found to be at all reasonable then they are included in the radiative calculations.
    ——————
    Well, are they or aren’t they ??
    Phone a friend.

  143. I went fishing on another WUWT thread and didn’t get a nibble. Since this weekend open thread is already touching on ocean/atmosphere exchanges of both heat energy and gases, I’ll try pushing the discussion toward some thoughts that have evolved as I’ve tried to digest the AGW discussion for the past 30 years.
    My hypothesis:
    a) A graph of the three [best-agreed, 200 year] data sets shows there is no correlation between CO2 increase, atmospheric temperatures, and fossil fuel consumption.
    b) The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 (from a vague value somewhere below 280 ppm, 200 years ago) was steady until ~1965, when the rate increased about 25% and has been steady for the past 45 years. (Why the relatively abrupt change? Someone can get a grant and make a career!)
    c) The Vostok core studies tell us that CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 700-800 years.
    d) The MWP peaked about 1200 AD.
    e) The oceans can, and do, hold far more CO2 than the atmosphere.
    f) Warm water retains less CO2 than cold water.
    g) Therefore, by undefined and unexamined natural processes, the MWP slowly warmed deeper water allowing release of CO2, which is only now emerging and being noted. Such a release would be so defuse that it would be near impossible to detect, particularly if you were looking at auto tailpipes.
    My last physics course was about 50 years ago. I follow WUWT and other sites for continuing education, but some of the math and methods remain beyond my grasp.
    Any clarification, even refutation, will be welcome. I don’t believe this process is unique to my brain, yet I’ve never seen it presented or discussed.

  144. Paul Vaughan (20:51:57) : “I’m still working on this, but here’s something to consider:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm

    It all looks very interesting. When you have finished working on it, please tell us about it in nice simple English! Is some of it in line with Landscheidt?
    Smokey (21:19:03) :
    Joel Shore (20:59:43):
    “The point that you are missing is that the radiation from the sun is mainly…”
    Horse manure. If CO2 intercepts some of the incoming solar energy and then re-emits part of it into outer space, then CO2 has a cooling effect.

    My understanding of the mechanisms is that Joel Shore has actually got this bit right – the proportion of incoming radiation at the wavelengths that CO2 intercepts is very low, but the proportion of outgoing radiation that CO2 intercepts is higher. Therefore CO2 can theoretically have a net warming effect (ka “climate sensitivity”). Correct me if I’m wrong. But I also understand it is true to say that the total effect is not great. The IPCC puts it at 3.2 deg C per doubling of CO2, but they have a completely unsubstantiated and unjustifiable use of “feedbacks” in that figure. The proper figure, ie. without “feedback”, from a paper by James Hansen (sorry no link) is from memory 1.2-1.3 and from Richard Lindzen (again sorry no link) is from memory 0.5. Given that these two guys are at opposite ends of the debate, it seems safe to expect the true figure to be between about 1/3 and 1/6 of the IPCC figure. Not enough for the burning of fossil fuels to be of any real benefit if the global cooling phase continues.

  145. Joel Shore (10:35:32)
    Thanks a lot for your input on this. Obviously I need to keep working on it. I’ll correct the logarithmic stuff and see what’s left. It’s very hard coming up with something short enough that people would be prepared to read and believe. I’m targeting friends who are not prepared to drop their AGW beliefs. You and I know it’s indoctrination by special interests but, boy, is it strong! And most people DO believe authority. I thought I’d try ‘it doesn’t matter much anyway’.
    I don’t think saying CO2 doesn’t warm at all or that the warming may not exist (UHI) or there is no positive feedback will fly. The cognitive dissonance will kick in and they’ll just reject it, or it will go over their heads. Most people don’t have a dog in this fight so it’s easier for them to go along with it until they are directly inconvenienced by it.
    Anyway, much appreciated, Thanks.

  146. Weather, not climate, episode MMMLLLXCVIII
    Had a great day’s spring skiing today at Mount Hutt, NZ.
    Field had a massive 50cm powder dump 8/9 October (local headline ‘Freak Storm’), and a clear day today to enjoy both the pow and the views.

  147. philincalifornia (22:54:06) :
    Joel Shore (21:37:59) :
    Smokey says:
    At any rate, I am quite sure that if these effects are found to be at all reasonable then they are included in the radiative calculations.
    ——————
    Well, are they or aren’t they ??
    Phone a friend.

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00350.htm
    “As for the sun, the earth receives the full spectrum. Most of the radiation
    above visible light is reflected back by the ozone layer of our atmosphere.
    The ultraviolet light that does get through causes sunburn. Radio waves
    don’t have enough energy to be noticed: some pass right through the earth.
    The two parts of the spectrum that have greatest effect are infrared and
    visible. Since visible light is such a narrow range of frequencies,
    infrared does provide a great deal of the heat we receive.”
    Dr. Ken Mellendorf
    Illinois Central College

  148. jimimindy (23:01:57)
    I’ve previously said several times that if there is a lag of 800 years between temperature and CO2 trends then that would suggest the MWP as the cause of current rising CO2 levels.
    However I’ve never taken that as conclusive for a number of reasons:
    The ice core record is not necessarily reliable enough as a CO2 proxy because of all the chemical processes that could have an effect over time and the amount of disturbance involved in their recovery and analysis.
    The old chemical based methods of CO2 measurement generally gave much higher and more variable readings than the readings from remote regions now relied upon. The discontinuity between those old readings and the modern readings is suspicious and needs more investigation and explanation.
    Above all there is a clear annual variation in the CO2 levels caused by seasonal effects and that is a very strong indication that the residence time of CO2 in the air is very much shorter than the AGW proponents suggest.
    On balance I have come to the view that the CO2 level is highly sensitive to ocean temperature and that the observed rise is actually a result of increased ocean heat content which itself arose because of a net positive balance between solar energy entering the oceans and energy then being released from oceans to air during the 20th century.
    That idea can be confirmed or rebutted if the current trend in falling ocean heat content continues and then shows up as a pause or fall in CO2 levels.
    I think that the rise in CO2 levels appears to have stalled for the moment so we should soon see.

  149. Can I get a hand from every person that thinks that there is actually such a thing as a “global temperature”? And another hand from those that think that we can measure it?

  150. JimInIndy (23:01:57) :
    […]
    b) The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 (from a vague value somewhere below 280 ppm, 200 years ago) was steady until ~1965, when the rate increased about 25% and has been steady for the past 45 years. (Why the relatively abrupt change? Someone can get a grant and make a career!)
    c) The Vostok core studies tell us that CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 700-800 years.
    d) The MWP peaked about 1200 AD.
    e) The oceans can, and do, hold far more CO2 than the atmosphere.
    f) Warm water retains less CO2 than cold water.
    g) Therefore, by undefined and unexamined natural processes, the MWP slowly warmed deeper water allowing release of CO2, which is only now emerging and being noted. Such a release would be so defuse that it would be near impossible to detect
    […]
    Any clarification, even refutation, will be welcome. I don’t believe this process is unique to my brain, yet I’ve never seen it presented or discussed.

    This has troubled me too, and I’ve not seen it presented or discussed.
    I don’t see how the MWP can warm deeper water, or rather I would think that surface water would be warmed more anyway which I think stuffs up the equation.
    So let’s try this : Say that at some point after 1200AD peak temperature some surface water sank into the thermohaline circulation. At the time that it sank, it was a bit cooler than water that sank earlier, so had a bit more CO2 in it, but it had a bit less CO2 than water that sank later.
    Fast-forward to today, when our bit of water gets to the surface again. The surface is cooler than in the past (it has been cooling since the MWP), so as our water gets to the surface it warms up a bit less than the earlier water did, so it doesn’t want to release as much CO2. OTOH it does contain more CO2 than the earlier water so it wants to release more. The equilibrium point, which maybe has to occur at some time anyway, just happens to be today. ie, yesterday’s water was a bit more influenced by not containing as much CO2, so it released less CO2 than today’s water, but tomorrow’s water will be a bit more influenced by warming up less, so it too will release less CO2 than today’s water.
    ?????

  151. JimInIndy
    At first sight your deduction is correct – given the documented 800 year lag for CO2 after the temperature rise, then, everything else being equal, an increase in CO2 800 years after the MWP should be observed.
    But I said everything else being equal. It does not seem that way because the MWP was terminated by the LIA.
    The standard model, basically the uniformist one in which we have a static system modulated by variations in solar radiance, and other physical peturbations, assumes that if the earth’s global mean surface temperature (GMST) increased during the MWP, and remained static, then on the data, CO2 in the atmosphere should then rise 800 years later is a valid one.
    So what really terminated the MWP? According to the Koreans documented in their Choson Annals, but not duplicated elsewhere at the time, the Earth passed through a meteorite swarm, causing cooling from the blanketing effect of meteoric dust etc. This is an unpredictable cause for the climate system variation.
    Other ideas involve the Milankovic cycles, sunspot activity, etc, and these are predictable causes for changes in the climate system.
    So I suspect it isn’t discussed, let alone considered, because it falls into the geological time-frame, and that source of ideas about climate seems to be contaminated with the slush payments we get from Bucyrus-Eyrie, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Peabody and all other other fossil fool miners.

  152. Hey Tallbloke:
    How were you able to land your comment on big Joe Romm’s planet Progressive?
    I think they allowed it to have something to poke fun at.
    He tried to poke fun at WUWT a few days ago. Said that it wasn’t a “real” science website. When will he admit that his isn’t either? If his site was any farther left it would fall off of the planet! (now he will say that what I said proves that WUWT posters are flat earthers!!!)
    But congrats anyway Tallbloke. At least your address hasn’t been blocked like so many others before you have been.

  153. “Alex Cull (11:02:56) :
    I second what Geoff has written: “Except that in Europe it’s ALL the mainstream parties who are wearing green”. Here in the UK, this is definitely the case, with little difference between Conservative, Labour and LibDem policies. The only political party openly sceptical about AGW is, as far as I know, UKIP (not mainstream yet, but gaining ground.)
    I don’t think there’s a lack of scepticism here about AGW, just a lack of a focal point to rally round. People have tended to go along with “green” measures as long as they were innocuous and money-saving. For instance, I took advantage of a government discount on loft insulation. To save the planet? No, because it was cheap and to reduce my energy bills. It’s when people become aware that the “greener” way is going to cost them dearly, that they will sit up and take notice.
    P Gosselin (02:11:30) : “I don’t see any tea parties in Britain, except the kind you have at 4 p.m.”
    We’re a little slow to get going, Pierre, I’ll allow, over here. But when we do get going, it’s certainly a sight to see. Watch this space.
    10
    10
    2009”
    Oh yeah, I remember those days, painfully too. This pales in comparison to AGW taxes, but I’d suggest everyone take the French 1790’s approach (Ok the French are good for food, wine, nuclear power plants, and sticking it to the man, King Luis the 15th). Problem is, polliticians (UK, Aus, NZ etc etc) have introduced laws to counter this sort of dissent.
    There is only one course of action, are we brave enough to act?

  154. “My understanding of the mechanisms is that Joel Shore has actually got this bit right – the proportion of incoming radiation at the wavelengths that CO2 intercepts is very low, but the proportion of outgoing radiation that CO2 intercepts is higher.”
    This is simply wrong. The Sun sends us much more radiation at all wavelengths than we emit. This is the physics of black body radiation and there is no frequency whose intensity goes down with rising temperature. Rising temperature may reduce the proportion of radiation at a given frequency, but always the intensity at every frequency rises with temperature.
    So since the Sun is hotter than the Earth it must be sending us more CO2 infra-red than we are attempting to emit.
    Any boffins point me towards estimating a day-time/nighttime ratio of 15 micron infra-red say.

  155. gtrip (03:15:02) :
    Hey Tallbloke:
    How were you able to land your comment on big Joe Romm’s planet Progressive?

    I keep using different valid email addresses. 😉
    My followup is in moderation though. We’ll see if he wants to try the tougher questions.
    ===================================
    tallbloke says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 11, 2009 at 4:32 am
    UPDATE: Yes, I am aware of the recent upper-ocean heat content data on the web. Please note that plots of very recent, highly variable upper-ocean content heat data down to 700 meters from unpeer-reviewed sources
    Joe, please explain how the deeper ocean is warmed while the upper ocean cools or stays static if the energy that it is heating it up is (allegedly) coming from longwave radiation from heightened levels of co2 in the atmosphere.
    By the way, the KNMI provided data is actually the same series as used by Syd Levitus et al 2009. Let the unpeers know.

  156. Can I point out that the BBC article being referred to is by “Climate Correspondent” Paul Hudson. Anthony will be pleased to know that Paul is a proper weatherman who has a first in Geophysics and Planetary Physics.
    He also has a good sense of humour.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWboG2UDxgA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1]

  157. About 10 days ago cool, drier air came down into Florida. Just prior to that the day time highs had been around 91 with the night time lows around 76. With the influx of that cool, drier air the day time highs were around 88 and the night time lows got down to the upper 60’s. Then the winds shifted and the flow came out of the southwest bringing in much more tropical air with it’s higher humidity. Now the day time highs are again around 91 and the night time lows back around 76. The point being that the drier air allowed the night time temperatures to get into the 60’s and the more humid air prevents that. I am talking about a 7-9 degree temperature difference at night solely due to water vapor levels. Water vapor clearly overwhelms any CO2 effects.

  158. The Goracle ran into a little resistance in, of all places. uber liberal Madison WI.
    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_dacf39c7-c2f8-5718-a5a0-d0cfb39f80bc.html
    Part of the reason may be that it has been below 32 degrees for the last 2 nights which is pretty cold for this time of year. If I had been in town Friday, there would have been 201 protestors.
    I’m still trying to find out if he came to town on a broom stick or a high carbon footprint personal jet.

  159. GOP Traitors
    Another GOP Turncoat ala Arlen Specter: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) officially endorses Kerry-Boxer Bill! ‘Climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security’
    Graham: ‘Yes We Can Pass Climate Legislation’ — ‘Work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world’
    Email link for GOP Sen. Graham’s DC Office – Ph. 202-224-5972 – Graham’s SC office 864-250-1417 — SC GOP HQ Ph. 803-988-8440
    Give him hell.

  160. Either the LIA wasn’t as cold as we think it was, or the CO2 data from the Ice Cores is completely flawed.
    There Cannot be a “straight line” from one thousand years ago, to present.


  161. Joel Shore (21:30:43) :
    … by looking at a plot closely related to one that you linked to in another thread: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png

    Joel , Joel, Joel – the ‘globalwarmingart site as a reference? Is this in any even reputable (non-peer reviewed graphics)?
    C’mon … a) the graph is misleadingly titled, b) the Y-axis is simply labeled ‘spectral intensity’ with no unit indication, c) thereby giving no indication of being linear or logarithmic and d) ostensibly shows earf (sic) and sun intensity peaks as being EQUAL (they are most assuredly NOT equal!) e) temperature radiative ‘curves’ for earf (sic) are labeled ambiguously AND f) are all shown to be EQUAL in intensity WHEN IN FACT T^4 will yield a higher peaked for the 310 deg. K curve.
    Again, c’mon, the ‘globalwarmingart’ site as a cited source? Its art, man, not science! (Do your buddies at Deltoid, Tamino, RC or other know you just cited them?)
    .
    .
    .

  162. British readers may want to read the SuperFreakonomics extract in today’s Sunday Times (pages 1-3 of the News Review section, I don’t believe it is available in html form at thetimes.co.uk but you can get the first page by putting “sunday times” “news review” into Google and clicking the link – unfortunately pages 2&3 are behind a trial/sign-up wall). It is titled:
    “Why Everything You Think You Know About Global Warming Is Wrong”
    Visitors to Watts Up With That will not learn much but many of the facts ignored by the alarmists and kept from the hoi polloi are stated – the Sunday Times has a circulation of 1.2 million and the first Freakonomics book sold 3 million.
    Inconvenient facts stated include: global temperatures are dropping; CO2 is a minor problem and ppm have been far higher in the past; sea levels are not rising dramatically and have been rising since the last ice age; climate models are crude, simplified and suffer from groupthink to keep funding; the importance of water vapour; Gore is groanworthy!
    The second-half of the article deals with the $250m geo-engineering solution proposed by Nathan Myhrvold’s group.

  163. I finally got to see the new version of “When the Earth Stood Still”… what a stupid adaptation. So instead of killing all the people of the earth with a quick nanobits death, the aliens take away ALL the energy sources (even the energy in batteries… and most likely electric cars) from us, condemning us to a very slow death for the majority of people. Those aliens are even more stupid than the AGWiers (or at least the writers are).
    That really sounds like what the sleeping politicians want to do.

  164. Forget Global Warming… they are preparing the next BIG SCARE… “Planet Earth is Drying Up!” Where do they get their science????????

  165. @Tom in Florida (06:25:07) :
    The point being that the drier air allowed the night time temperatures to get into the 60’s and the more humid air prevents that. I am talking about a 7-9 degree temperature difference at night solely due to water vapor levels. Water vapor clearly overwhelms any CO2 effects.”
    Exactly.
    I first noticed this as a teenager in the mid-60s, having grown up in Houston, Texas – a very humid city. Then made a two week trip into the much drier clime of northern New Mexico – Philmont Scout Ranch – in July. Not enough difference in latitude to make any difference, but the difference in absolute humidity had us trying to keep warm at night.
    Anyone can see this, simply visit a desert state during the summer, stay up until midnight and see how cold it gets. Then try the same thing in, oh, Miami, New Orleans, or Houston. One can eliminate UHI effects by driving out into a rural area near those big cities.
    Water vapor is king. CO2 is the serf.

  166. Hey Gene,
    The -4 record is in the link I provided; it comes from the following group within the link:
    RECORD EVENT REPORT
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GREAT FALLS MT
    225 AM MDT SUN OCT 11 2009
    MTZ008>015-044>055-120328-
    …RECORD COOL MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES FOR OCT 10 IN NORTH CENTRAL
    AND SOUTHWEST MONTANA…
    LOCATION NEW RECORD OLD RECORD YEAR SET
    DILLON AIRPORT 26 33 2008
    GREAT FALLS 20 34 1959
    MARTINSDALE 24 37 1959
    SIMPSON 26 26 1959
    HELENA 25 36 1959
    CUT BANK 20 26 1972
    WISDOM 29 36 1949
    HAVRE 28 29 1959
    BOULDER 19 40 2008
    VALIER 18 38 1919
    STANFORD 18 38 2008
    TURNER 25 44 1985
    WHITE SULPHUR SP 19 30 1924
    CHOTEAU 18 35 1928
    BELGRADE FIELD 30 39 1946
    GOLD BUTTE 24 27 1959
    LEWISTOWN 17 28 1959
    …RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES FOR OCT 10 IN NORTH CENTRAL AND
    SOUTHWEST MONTANA…
    LOCATION NEW RECORD OLD RECORD YEAR SET
    DILLON AIRPORT 8 15 1987
    GREAT FALLS 4 14 1919
    MARTINSDALE 1 15 1987
    HELENA 9 15 1987
    CUT BANK 3 10 1977
    VALIER 2 9 1919
    STANFORD 0 10 1987
    WHITE SULPHUR SP -1 8 1919
    CHOTEAU -4 18 1977
    GOLD BUTTE 2 14 1987
    LEWISTOWN 11 12 1987
    $$
    Some of the records for max and min exceed the previous readings by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit…

  167. Clear dry skies, light wind in Pendleton, cold front overhead. Right now all the leafy green trees are dropping their green leaves. The colors have not turned to autumn hues yet in town. But the stem connections froze solid hard overnight. Now every little breeze brings them to the ground. Record low highs and record low lows are falling all over the place.

  168. And again send this to your thieving “green” crook politicians.

    P Gosselin
    Sons of Liberty
    Yes – ressurect the Sons of Liberty!

  169. They couldn’t shut Dee up, so now they’re gonna try to unplug him, and all the rest us with this
    Climate Bill of oppression.

    It’s Tea Party time!!!!!!!!!

  170. Call, write, fax, e-mail those Senators.
    Call them every day and tell them they will be send out of Government if they support thus “Bill of fools”.

  171. Dear interested readers,
    Please kindly send the following to your political representatives:
    ———-
    Dear Honourable Senator / Representative,
    This is my view on the proposed climate bill:

    Also, please tell the authors of this bill to ram it up where the sun don’t shine, i.e. where the greenhouse gases come out.
    Thank you for your time, sincerely
    (Your Name)
    ———–
    I just sent it to my reps from Vermont.

  172. That flag and title has a storied history. Like common words in our English lexicon, its meaning has gone from good to tarnished. It is ripe for misinterpretation. As a result, it would bring more bad press than good press to fly such a flag and title to represent a new mission.

  173. Pam Gray,
    Nonsense!
    Cite the basis for your reasoning. There is no misinterpretation for liberty. Misinterpretations are called authoritarianism, tyranny, oppression, enslavement, etc…

  174. A rather stern warning from Sen. Lindsay Graham:
    Either the Congress acts to pass Climate Change Legistlation (and he means Cap and Trade to be enforced by 2013) or Obama will sic the EPA on us next year.
    That tells me that the US government has presumably lost control.
    Read between the lines: Pass the bill and deal with it in 2012 as to it’s legitiimacy and desirability or we go down hard into severe depression at the population level. The big boys are immune & insured by the Treasury (read that as in control of).
    Listening to the Round Tables of political discussion this weekend, there is talk of something boiling over down deep in the American psyche.
    America calls out one last time for a leader. Who will answer it’s call?

  175. Ron de Haan (10:54:17) :
    And I have to ask the question that America asks: Will they trick us or treat us?
    C&T is lights out. 10’s of millions will be thrown out of house & home and cast adrift.
    Driving back from the Bay Area, I saw lots of car dealerships, rest stops, roadside business with a lot of lights turned off. Bank owned and short sale signs all over San Jose. Is another wave set to hit our economy?

  176. More than one Southern States organization called themselves by the same moniker during and after the Civil War, and clearly tried to tie their organization back to the original one. I am not saying that the original organization under that title and flag is not to be lauded for its efforts in bringing to birth our Declaration of Independence and repeal of the Stamp Act. I am just saying that opposition groups will be all over you with that title and flag, not for its original purpose, but for the later slave states organizations under the same title.

  177. Ron de Haan (10:37:34) :
    Will they push the Climate Bill through Senate?
    With more and more GOP Senators selling out it looks if we are going to lose this major battle.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574447090218534138.html

    “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” – Abraham Lincoln
    Obama will go into the history books as the most dissapointing president ever! Climate change is like his Nobel peace prize, its based on things that might or could happen in a alternate future accoording to some wishfull thinkers and their computermodels.

  178. Sandy says:

    I’m with Smokey. The Sun irradiates the Earth with an awful lot more 15 micron IR radiation each day than the Earth attempts to emit at night.

    and

    This is simply wrong. The Sun sends us much more radiation at all wavelengths than we emit. This is the physics of black body radiation and there is no frequency whose intensity goes down with rising temperature. Rising temperature may reduce the proportion of radiation at a given frequency, but always the intensity at every frequency rises with temperature.
    So since the Sun is hotter than the Earth it must be sending us more CO2 infra-red than we are attempting to emit.

    Sandy, I will explain to you exactly where you go astray: What you are doing is presumably looking at the Steffan-Boltzmann Equation and saying that the amount of radiation that the sun emits is much larger than the earth emits. And, yes, the amount it emits AT ITS SURFACE is much larger than the amount that the earth emits at its surface. However, the sun is 150 million km away from us whereas its radius is 696 thousand km. That means that by the time the energy emitted by the sun gets out to where we are, the area of the sphere that the emitted energy is spread over has increased by a factor of over 46,000…and hence the W/m^2 is way down by this factor.
    In fact, we know that the radiation that we receive from the sun and the radiation that the earth emits back out into space must approximately balance. If the former was larger than the latter, the earth would be warming very rapidly and would continue to warm until it reached a temperature where it was emitting as much as it receives. There would be no arguments about what ocean heat content is doing because it would be rising like a rocket. Right now, we are trying to detect changes in ocean heat content that are due to a radiative imbalance that is well less than 1% of the input energy from the sun.
    Hence, and because of the vast difference in the spectrum for the sun and that for the earth, in fact there is way more infrared radiation in our atmosphere from the earth than from the sun. And, again, this graph shows it: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png

  179. philincalifornia (22:54:06) says:

    Well, are they or aren’t they ??
    Phone a friend.

    The IPCC AR4 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm ), Chapter 2, p. 140 says:

    The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio.

    So, yes, any significant absorptions of solar radiation are included in the radiative forcing calculation.

  180. Mike Jonas says:

    The proper figure, ie. without “feedback”, from a paper by James Hansen (sorry no link) is from memory 1.2-1.3 and from Richard Lindzen (again sorry no link) is from memory 0.5. Given that these two guys are at opposite ends of the debate, it seems safe to expect the true figure to be between about 1/3 and 1/6 of the IPCC figure. Not enough for the burning of fossil fuels to be of any real benefit if the global cooling phase continues.

    Actually, I think the number that you quote from Lindzen is his estimate of the climate sensitivity, which includes his belief that the feedback is negative. I don’t think that Lindzen disputes Hansen that the value without feedbacks is a bit over 1 C.
    Of course, there is a lot of empirical evidence (e.g., from paleoclimate events such as the last glacial maximum, as well as the climate response to the Mt Pinatubo eruption) that the net feedbacks are positive and that the actual climate sensitivity is in the range of 2 to 4.5 C, as the IPCC notes.

  181. Ben (05:00:07) :
    Can I point out that the BBC article being referred to is by “Climate Correspondent” Paul Hudson. Anthony will be pleased to know that Paul is a proper weatherman

    Known as “Paul the weatherman” Paul is a humourous and popular regular in my part of the UK on the local TV network. This is the first BBC article I’ve seen by him.
    I hope he won’t soon be known as “Paul the binman”…

  182. Dave Dodd:

    Sorry, I don’t claim any “reputation in the scientific community.” I have no idea who Gerlich and Tscheuschner are, but I DO have six decades of empirical evidence that heat ALWAYS flows from the warmer medium to the cooler.

    Well, the problem seems to more be reading comprehension then since I agree with you on this point and explained how the atmospheric greenhouse effect is consistent with the NET heat flow being from warmer to cooler.

    It should be noted that the “greenhouse effect” itself does not exist within a glass greenhouse: no radiation is trapped therein to heat the air, the trapped air is simply heated by convection from the contained solid surfaces (which are heated by absorbing the sun’s IR radiation).

    You are correct that the “greenhouse effect” is a bit of a misnomer but it is the name that we are stuck with. The analogy does agree at the level of trapping heat but not at the level of the dominant heat transfer mechanism that is involved, which is radiation for the atmospheric greenhouse effect but convection for the real greenhouse.

    If the trapped air were somehow warmer than any of the solid surfaces, our energy worries would be over! That is exactly what you claim atmospheric CO2 does: in your view, there is more heat energy in the atmosphere when the sun shines than there is in the solid structure of the earth. Or put another way, the downwelling IR (from CO2 re-radiation) should show a diurnal cycle.

    I lost you here.

    Nor is AGW a demonstrable (falsifiable) hypothesis as required by the Scientific Method. AGW is therefore BS to the 4th power!

    That is just silly. Aspects of the theory are being tested every day. And, it has already past several important tests. In fact, it languished for decades as a hypothesis in the scientific wilderness because of various objections. E.g., scientists thought that the oceans could absorb all of the CO2 that we produced until the good measurements of atmospheric CO2 and Revelle’s explanation of the complex ocean buffering chemistry gave us both empirical evidence and theoretical understanding as to why the CO2 was and should be accumulating in the atmosphere.

  183. Joel, if increasing CO2 is absorbing more and more lw radiation and then re-radiating it, warming essentially the oceans’ very thin top layer, causing more evaporation thus more water vapor thus more warming (since water vapor is much better at absorbing lw than CO2 is), we would see the signal showing up in measurements during the industrialized age from about the 40’s on in both increasing water vapor, and decreasing longwave infrared measured at the outer edge of our atmosphere. So what do the measurements show? Is the process you think is active, working?
    Do you know why these all important signals are not showing up in the water vapor and lw radiation data? The measurement error is larger than the supposed increase. The only way to demonstrate it is to use models, not real data.
    It is still a pig in a poke. You are saying something is real even though it cannot be observed.

  184. Joel Shore:
    “…the actual climate sensitivity is in the range of 2 to 4.5 C, as the IPCC notes.”
    Nah. That’s plain wrong. As has been explained to Joel ad nauseum, the IPCC is fantastically wrong in their guess regarding climate sensitivity, which is a function of CO2 residence time. No one else agrees with them. Personally, I think Dan Rather writes their Assessment Reports.
    At current levels and higher, CO2 has little effect. The log response of warming to increased CO2 shows that almost all the warming from CO2 occurs in the first 20 ppmv.
    The temperature of the oceans regulates CO2. The atmosphere follows the oceans, not vice versa.

  185. ““What (if anything) would convince you that Manmade emissions of Carbon Dioxide Poses a catastrophic threat to the world?””40 shades of green
    If I found in the Bible: “Thou shall not burn carbon”.
    The world is quite dangerous;
    the Universe too.
    For many dangers
    there’s nothing to do.
    (If there’s no God,
    we are simply screwed.)
    But with CO2
    it’s simple indeed:
    No burning of carbon
    and please do not breathe.

  186. Joel Shore:

    As you change the concentration of CO2, you increase the effective radiating level from which emission escapes to space (*) and because the temperature is a decreasing function of height in the troposphere and because the amount of radiation emitted is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, this means less radiation escapes to space. This results in a radiative imbalance and as a response, the climate system warms until radiative balance is restored.

    But, according to Infra Red Systems Engineering (only available in print), CO2 band transmission falls to essentially zero over path lengths between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 miles depending on altitude and weather conditions.
    This means that little, if any, IR in the CO2 absorption bands actually reaches the upper troposphere – let alone escapes into space.

  187. “Perhaps someone can explain how a Roman sea port of 2000 years ago in Kent UK can now be 2 miles inland. “
    River silt?

  188. rob uk
    Wow! Good question.
    I don’t think UK is tectonically moving up, is it?
    Were sea levels 2000 years ago 1 or 2 meters higher!?

  189. “America calls out one last time for a leader. Who will answer it’s call?”
    Well, I could not do worse than the current crop. I would take on the Fed and might soon have a bullet in the head.
    Naw, I’ll pass. Too much dirt in my past though I am a saint compared to most Americans.
    Vote for Ron Paul. He is probably your last good choice.

  190. Pamela Gray,
    Here is a paper that discusses the moistening of the upper troposphere as detected by satellites: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;310/5749/841
    And, here is a paper summarizing the evidence on the water vapor feedback: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/323/5917/1020
    Smokey says:

    The log response of warming to increased CO2 shows that almost all the warming from CO2 occurs in the first 20 ppmv.

    The property of a logarithmic function is that each doubling of CO2 concentrations produces the same effect. Yes, each constant increment of 20ppm produces less effect but that is why scientists talk in terms of a doubling (or any given FRACTIONAL change in CO2 levels) rather than an absolute change. So, in other words, this fact doesn’t tell anybody anything that they don’t already know…and doesn’t answer the question of how sensitive the climate is to a doubling.

    The temperature of the oceans regulates CO2. The atmosphere follows the oceans, not vice versa.

    If you believe that the oceans are emitting CO2 in net, then why does the empirical evidence show them to be acting as a sink, absorbing H2O and acidifying. And, what is happening to the CO2 that we know we are emitting from fossil fuel burning?

  191. Joel, you have got to be kidding. Neither are available and the second one doesn’t even include an abstract. So I cannot comment on the papers other than to say it looks like the first one didn’t find an increase in water vapor, but just an indication, a signal, which they confirmed with their models. That is not empirical observed evidence. However, there are plenty of public sites that provide data on water vapor and lw radiation. So my question still stands as unanswered by you. Do you want me to gather the data for you?

  192. Bermuda has seen accelerated erosion of its coastline over the past decade. By understanding the impact of anticipated sea level rise on the island, a more effective means of adaptation can be implemented to minimize the effect of climate change.
    Gurnet Rock Drowned Forest: The interlocking root system and lower stump sections of four Red Cedar trees are located in 30 feet of water just inside Gurnet Rock off the southeast of Bermuda. The roots and stumps are the remnants of a Cedar forest that grew in the area prior to 7,290 years before 2000 when the sea level was at least 30 feet lower than the present day level. The investigation of the drowned forest is part of the Bermuda Sea Level Study conducted by the Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute, the Geological Survey of Canada and the New England Aquarium.
    The latest report from the International Panel on Climate Change confirms that global warming induced by human activity is a real phenomenon and not simply perturbations in natural climate variability. Sea level rise due to global warming is estimated to be about 0.5m or more over the next century. When coupled with increased storm severity (also a consequence of climate change) sea level rise will have enhanced adverse effects on coastlines around the world. The United Nations has declared that the impact on small islands will be most significant in terms of environmental, social and economic adversity.
    So sea level was 30ft lower 7,290 years ago, did it rise steadily, did it suddenly rise, did it rise at 0.5m or more over a century or two, who knows.
    http://www.buei.org/page/view/name/1,sea+level+project

  193. Peter says:

    But, according to Infra Red Systems Engineering (only available in print), CO2 band transmission falls to essentially zero over path lengths between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 miles depending on altitude and weather conditions.
    This means that little, if any, IR in the CO2 absorption bands actually reaches the upper troposphere – let alone escapes into space.

    You are raising an issue that was a puzzle for a while but was settled in the middle of the 20th century. Here http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141 is where to go for a complete historical explanation and I will quote the most relevant part here:

    Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. So they tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail.
    What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
    What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall’s analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

  194. Pamela Gray:
    Science is available at any reasonable local or college library. The best measurements of upper tropospheric water vapor are made by remote sensing from satellite observations, like Soden uses. And, yes, they compared their observations to models…That is how science works. You compare empirical data to the theories that you have.
    The data on the web that you seem to be alluding to that I know about is radiosonde data which, for humidity, is known to be extremely unreliable.

  195. Joel Shore, yes or no:
    For an earth temp of 288 K there is peak in the spectral emission at or about ‘atmosphereric window’ at 10 um?
    Follow Q for the bonus points up:
    Is this a fluke? Or did nature some how ‘work this out’ over eons?
    And please, no more ‘globalwarmingart’ cites either …
    .
    .

  196. Here is a fun clip. Phelim McAleer tries to ask Al Gore about the errors in “An Inconvienient Truth” and after a short banter has his mic cut off.

  197. Pamela Gray (10:54:40) :
    “That flag and title has a storied history. Like common words in our English lexicon, its meaning has gone from good to tarnished. It is ripe for misinterpretation. As a result, it would bring more bad press than good press to fly such a flag and title to represent a new mission”.
    If Obama is finished the Stars and Stripes will be available.

  198. You may all be amused to hear that Greenpeas are scaling new heights – literally.
    UK parliament reconvenes after many months of summer holidays tomorrow. Greenpeas activists are at this very moment perched on the roof of the Houses of Parliament and are planning to stay there all night to persuade parliament to act on climate change.
    Sadly for the activists, the MPs are more likely to be looking over their shoulders rather than up at the roof, as many new revelations about their expenses are due to be revealed tomorrow.

  199. Joel Shore (13:53:07)
    I don’t have a problem with any of that and I’m sure it’s correct in principle.
    The thing is though that it all assumes an absence of internal (within the Earth system) variability at the sea/air interface and at the air/space interface.
    Once one realises that there is variability in the rate of energy flow at the sea/air interface then the scenario must change. The assumption that the air controls the temperature of the Earth only holds good if there is no variation in the rate of energy release from the oceans. I thnk we now have enough evidence to indicate that that assumption is no longer helpful. The oceans really do vary in their rate of energy release to the air on at least 2 and I would say 3 timescales.
    The sea surface temperature controls the surface air temperature so the whole temperature profile from surface to the top of the troposphere changes in tune with that sea surface variability. In order to maintain an energy balance the hydrological cycle changes speed to accelerate or decelerate energy to the top of the troposphere as appropriate to try and even out the disequilibrium caused by the oceanic variability.
    At the top of the troposphere the variability in energy flow induced by the ocean variability comes up against a requirement that energy leaving the system cannot exceed energy entering it so the air circulations in the stratosphere have to change to ensure that that requirement is also met.
    Those air circulation changes in the stratosphere regulate the rate of transfer of energy from air to space so that equilibrium is maintained.
    Climate variability is the consequence of those constantly shifting and mutually incompatible parameters and is mostly an internal Earth system phenomenon not properly reflected in the ideas of Tyndall et al or in current climate models.
    Large astronomic (solar or solar orbital) influences or large long term geological events (redistribution of land masses) might establish a new long term equilibrium but on the time scales we are concerned with the oceanic variability (perhaps backed up by some solar variability) is enough to explain climate events which we have observed during recorded history.
    Severe volcanic outbreaks or even meteorite strikes do not seem to produce permanent consequences so the system is clearly very robust and independent of changes in the composition of the air.
    If the system was not independent of changes in the composition of the air then the large changes in the rate of evaporation from changes in ocean surface temperatures would be setting frequent new equilibria on a regular basis and we would be well aware of it. Instead we see gradual changes over time as the system adjusts to changes in oceanic forcing.
    The truth is that the oceanic variations try to upset the global equilibrium temperature and the air circulations in troposphere and stratosphere change to cause an energy flow effect in an equal and opposite direction.
    The same system deals with changes in the proportion of GHGs in the air whether they be water vapour, CO2 or anything else. The sea surface temperatures control the global air temperatures and changes in the air alone cannot change the ocean temperatures so all that happens as a result of more human produced GHGs is a miniscule shift in the tropospheric air circulation systems which is wholly unmeasurable as compared to the natural shifts caused by oceanic variability.

  200. Peter Plail (14:24:02) :
    Sadly for the activists, the MPs are more likely to be looking over their shoulders rather than up at the roof, as many new revelations about their expenses are due to be revealed tomorrow.

    Except for boss-eyed Brown, who will have no problem keeping one eye on the sandalistas, and the other on his payoff-parliamentarians.
    Not very PC – sorry

  201. Mike Jonas (23:33:34) ”
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm
    […] Is some of it in line with Landscheidt?”

    Landscheidt, Charvatova, & others got me thinking about some of the temporal components, but you will note a marked departure from even Landscheidt’s most recent ideas.
    Landscheidt did not stop consistently-refining his work (review it chronologically); rather, he died (in 2004).
    Two things I think are important to keep in mind:
    1) Landscheidt was aware of wavelet methods near the end of his life, but he had not yet used them (to my knowledge). (I base this point on an e-mail of his, which I found on the net, in which he seemed excited about the potential (then-future) utility of wavelet methods as an aid in his investigations.)
    2) Landscheidt did not have the benefit of access to Yu.V. Barkin’s more recent work. (You will note that my arguments in the draft are not centred around solar cycles.)
    Charvatova has been instrumental to my awareness of features of solar system dynamics worthy of deeper study, but some of the possible mechanism-pathways discussed in some of her papers leave me with the instinct to retain an open mind and pursue further investigation without drawing conclusions.
    Studying Charvatova & Landscheidt is a healthy mental exercise – and I would caution their students to be skeptical about the role(s) they assign to solar variation. I have no doubt that solar system dynamics affect terrestrial oscillations, but if there are also pathways of solar system dynamic influence via solar-variation cycles, that is not a simple matter to elucidate due to the confounding (if one is even willing to assume there is an effect via solar variation).
    So, in short: I advise studying the works of Charvatova & Landscheidt as an exercise in thinking about the rhythms of the solar system, but I would not advise assuming they have been on the right track with their speculations about mechanisms.
    Landscheidt & Charvatova are pioneers. The work they have pursued is very difficult, particularly due to all the potentially-seemingly-paradoxical phase-reversals that go with derivatives & integrals-over-harmonics of trigonometric functions of multi-period waves, etc. [It’s not very intuitive to most people what happens when you differentiate iteratively and integrate incrementally over different classes of multi-period waves.] Even if Landscheidt & Charvatova got some stuff wrong, enormous respect is in order; they dared to venture into a complex & difficult land and endure it with tenacity.

    A note in relation to your max-temp study [Mike Jonas (06:00:03)]:
    I can caution you that I found some phenomenally funky discrepancies between TMax & homogenized TMax for a site I study. I cannot underscore “phenomenally funky” enough. This is among the most ‘weird’ data discrepancies I’ve encountered. The only other thing comparable would be the fake CO2 ‘data’ (not actually data) I found (that was massaged as though someone used a trowel to make the mortar of all the years have identical structure). I’ll wait for an opportune moment before I write to the homogenizers; timing will be important if there’s to be any hope of getting anything other than a useless admina-response.

    Mike Jonas (23:33:34) ”
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm”
    […] please tell us about it in nice simple English!”

    Is (all of) the draft really so hard to follow?
    Note: In the “Further Discussion” section I presented what you might call a “layman’s view” of the harmonic relationships (basic graphs of angles) to supplement preceding arguments based on wavelet analysis …but the organization of the document as-a-whole is (so far) just whatever I could manage in one sitting — and (!) I’m not inclined to invest more on presentation until the authorities appear willing to acknowledge that 2+2=4.
    Thanks for sharing your interest Mike.
    Regards,
    Paul.

  202. For Joel and his Skeptics
    Although I can’t follow some of the techtalk you guys and the one gal I can identify here (Pamela) clearly indicate that the science isn’t settled yet.
    Thanks for the proof, also this debate should continue in the presence of Obama.

  203. Paul, interesting stuff, I looked at your draft too. I wonder if you’d like to see a paper on planetary and lunar resonances I had sent to me? Drop me an email to admin at tallbloke dot net
    Cheers

  204. Joel, you still haven’t shown that water vapor has increased anthropogenically. And you likely will not be able to. Few (I believe only one) satellites have been able to distinguish water vapor changes at different altitudes in the troposphere, such that the better series is anything but an indication of climate trends (it is a very short series). What has been collected so far proves that when El Nino is present, water vapor increases. That isn’t new. Warmer is wetter. Colder is drier. Those conditions can readily be modeled such that they reasonably relate to natural weather trends and cycles as a part of Earth’s naturally variable climate systems. You haven’t been able to demonstrate anything out of the ordinary that I get from here
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

  205. Kum Dollison (14:20:53) :
    “From Aug 97 to Aug 98 the atmosphere added 3.90 ppm CO2.
    From May 1999 to May 2000 the addition was 0.60 ppm.
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
    From June 92 to June 93 the increase was 0.24
    Several times in the late 50’s, and sixties there were 12 month periods of Decreasing CO2. There was one 18 month period of decreasing CO2.”
    Yes. The yearly CO2 record correlates with yearly global temps. Hence ’98, “hottest year on record” and ’98, largest out-gassing in the recent CO2 record.

  206. Some thoughts for warmists
    Lowest max so far for october
    Total Number of Records for October 2009
    (out of 62,520 stations with at least 30 years of data)
    New: 1,310 + Tied: 284 = Total: 1,594
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=lomx&month=10&day=0&year=2009&sts%5B%5D=US&submitted=Get+Records#recs
    Lowest Min for October
    Total Number of Records for October 2009
    (out of 62,486 stations with at least 30 years of data)
    New: 729 + Tied: 279 = Total: 1,008
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=10&day=0&year=2009&sts%5B%5D=US&submitted=Get+Records#recs
    All with CO2 rising and Lisa Jackson declaring CO2 as a pollutant. Congress and the Obama team sure have not looked out the window. They believe in Briffa’s YAD06 and as such it is an unprecedented hot October in North America.

  207. tallbloke (15:12:15) :
    Except for boss-eyed Brown, who will have no problem keeping one eye on the sandalistas, and the other on his payoff-parliamentarians.
    I thought his eyes are messed up?

  208. Joel Shore (13:53:07) :
    The Spenser Weart explanation of the qualitative physical effect of CO2 in changing the temperature profile the atmosphere seems to me to be correct. So why am I a skeptic and why is Weart a catastropist? It all comes down to the magnitude of the effect. I understand that the “consensus” of both sides is that that the magnitude of the effect is somewhere around 1Kelvin per doubling of CO2, a number that has no capacity to frighten or generate research funds. Hence the introduction of the H2O positive feedback factor based on vastly more simplistic and dubious physical principles.
    Basically, CO2 is a spent climate “forcing” at present atmospheric concentrations and the answer is in that wonderful and ubiquitous water molecule.

  209. Robert van der Veeke (11:55:46) :
    Ron de Haan (10:37:34) :
    Will they push the Climate Bill through Senate?
    With more and more GOP Senators selling out it looks if we are going to lose this major battle.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574447090218534138.html
    “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” – Abraham Lincoln
    “Obama will go into the history books as the most dissapointing president ever! Climate change is like his Nobel peace prize, its based on things that might or could happen in a alternate future accoording to some wishfull thinkers and their computermodels”.
    Robert, you are right from a scientific view, but you are wrong from the political angle.
    You only have to read the Lisbon Treaty to see where Europe is heading and the US will follow.
    Chapter 21 of the United Nations will be implemented.
    The consequences will be dire.
    Europe is already going down the drain:
    http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/10/eu-circling-drain.html
    This is the endgame:
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15601
    This is no joke.

  210. David S (16:08:14) :
    Malfunction is my guess. The Artic Sea Ice is growing rapidly, in total defiance of the DMI’s strange run off the shoulder, which by the way, is totally unprecedented. I would say something is very stuck.

  211. Al Gore says : “We’re very close to that political tipping point,”
    The tipping point is may be going in a way he doesn’t wish it too.
    —-
    “Never before in human history has a single generation been asked to make such difficult and consequential decisions.”
    Al Gore can be a used car salesman when his global warming gig is done.
    —-
    ‘He said he expects the Senate to pass a carbon emissions reduction bill before a December United Nations conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.’
    I think the chances of me marrying Kelly Brook by December are higher. 😉
    —-
    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_dacf39c7-c2f8-5718-a5a0-d0cfb39f80bc.html

  212. “Another GOP Turncoat ala Arlen Specter: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) officially endorses Kerry-Boxer Bill! ‘Climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security’”
    If the GOP minority helps pass this bill, there will be a third-party presidential candidate in 2012 with a shot at victory.

  213. rbateman (11:09:22) :
    Ron de Haan (10:54:17) :
    “And I have to ask the question that America asks: Will they trick us or treat us?
    C&T is lights out. 10’s of millions will be thrown out of house & home and cast adrift.
    Driving back from the Bay Area, I saw lots of car dealerships, rest stops, roadside business with a lot of lights turned off. Bank owned and short sale signs all over San Jose. Is another wave set to hit our economy?”
    rbateman,
    They trick us.
    It’s going to get worse.
    Obama and his lot (including a bunch of GOP traitors) are not only bringing down the USA but the entire free world.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ship_of_fools_obamas_intimates.html
    Also read the canadafreepress article I’ve posted earlier.
    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
    http://green-agenda.com
    The Lisbon Treaty (EU) and the concept of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.
    With CO2 control legalized there won’t be room for any economic growth.

  214. Ben (05:00:07) : …Paul Hudson…
    The article had to be approved by an editor before it was put online, didn’t it? So I am wondering what the BBC is feeling about global warming. I am wondering if they must move in a bit of a different direction since winters are colder and longer and summers are a bit cooler.
    What I mean is, can they continue to say global warming is happening when the earth says it isn’t?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

  215. Al Gore says: “A zebra cannot change its spots.”
    The Stupidest Things Ever Said by Politicians, p. 54

  216. We are also experiencing record cold. My town of Pullman got down to 8F. What’s interesting to me is that quite a few of the previous record lows were set on this date in 2008. I don’t remember it but we must have had an early cold last year, too. Many more years like this and bitter cold will be the new normal.
    http://www.wunderground.com/US/WA/033.html#REC
    station new record old record year kept since
    Bayview 21 22 2003 1947
    Coeur D’Alene coop 23 26 1954 1895
    Colville 14 21 1907 1899
    Deer Park 18 21 2008 1999
    Ephrata 22 26 1990 1948
    Grand Coulee 21 29 2002 1934
    Lewiston 21 28 2008 1881
    Mazama 12 19 1969 1948
    Moses Lake 17 26 2008 1947
    Mullan Pass 6 19 2008 1938
    Omak 10 24 1946 1931
    plain 14 23 2008 1937
    Pomeroy 12 24 2008 1891
    Priest River 8 20 2008 1898
    Pullman 8 20 1990 1940
    Ritzville 21 22 1924 1899
    Spokane Airport 20 24 2002 1881
    Spokane felts 20 26 2008 2000
    Spokane NWS office 19 26 1997 1995
    Wenatchee 23 33 1990 1959
    Wenatchee water plant 25 28 1931 1925
    Winthrop 12 21 1990 1906

  217. rob uk (13:13:47) :
    Perhaps someone can explain how a Roman sea port of 2000 years ago in Kent UK can now be 2 miles inland.
    Perhaps Greenland was green then too. The melted ice off Greenland would be part of the reason for that sea port, wouldn’t it?

  218. Oh ports in England have often retreated from the sea, such as Rye, or fallen into to it such as Dunwich.
    There is nothing new here, a combination of post glacial rebound, tidal flows, most important because they sweep detritus here and there, and possibly a slight sea level rise account for it.
    To deal with these problems we used to build dykes but apparently this is no longer politically correct, so many people are likely to lose their homes and lands to erosion which is easilyand cheaply prevented.
    Something to do with being green I suppose.
    Kindest Regards

  219. The problem with these ships logs which provide excellent information is that the really important ones are those of HM packets. which ran regular routes until steam navigation.
    The problem here is that many, but not all, HM packets were contract vessels, and although they kept and furnished their logs to the Post Office they are proving very difficult to find.
    What the then Post Office and Hydrographers Office have done with these records is difficult to ascertain. I am sure they still exist but the question is where.
    Kindest Regards

  220. Pamela Gray says:

    What has been collected so far proves that when El Nino is present, water vapor increases. That isn’t new. Warmer is wetter. Colder is drier.

    But, that is basically what the water vapor feedback is. It just says that if some either internal or external influence causes warming, then that warming causes the evaporation of water vapor and that causes a magnification of the effect. (Actually, the slightly subtle part is that the water vapor feedback depends mainly on water vapor in the upper troposphere for which the argument that warmer would lead to wetter was both more complicated to make and also harder to confirm empirically, although the satellite data now seem to be confirming it.)
    You seem to think such a scenario is obvious for the case of these ENSO oscillations but that it somehow doesn’t manifest itself for warming caused by the radiative forcing of increased CO2. I’m not sure why.
    Robert Austin says:

    The Spenser Weart explanation of the qualitative physical effect of CO2 in changing the temperature profile the atmosphere seems to me to be correct. So why am I a skeptic and why is Weart a catastropist? It all comes down to the magnitude of the effect. I understand that the “consensus” of both sides is that that the magnitude of the effect is somewhere around 1Kelvin per doubling of CO2, a number that has no capacity to frighten or generate research funds. Hence the introduction of the H2O positive feedback factor based on vastly more simplistic and dubious physical principles.

    Robert,
    I’m glad to hear that you accept the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. (Are you a fellow physicist, by the way; your name corresponds to a fairly prominent physicist who I know of who is a skeptic?) Perhaps you could prevail upon your fellow skeptics to embrace it and, if they are going to argue about issues, at least choose ones where there is actually some room for legitimate scientific debate, like regarding what the climate sensitivity is? They don’t seem to listen to me but maybe if more skeptics started holding their fellow skeptics feet to the fire, we could actually get on to talking about issues that have not been settled for half a century!
    I disagree with you, however, that the water vapor feedback is based on dubious principles. Sure, there are simplifications, but as the Dessler and Sherwood paper that I linked to discusses, there is now considerable empirical evidence that these simplifications are roughly correct (and also a better understanding of why they are likely to be).
    It seems to me that the only thing that can save us from a moderately large climate sensitivity is a negative cloud feedback. And, that seems incompatible with most estimates of climate sensitivities based on past paleoclimate events (such as the Last Glacial Maximum) and the climate response to the eruption of Mt Pinatubo. (Also, nobody to my knowledge has demonstrated such a negative feedback in a climate model, especially a model that still does some sort of reasonable job of producing the basic climatology…Admittedly, this doesn’t prove that it isn’t possible but, along with the empirical evidence, I think it makes it somewhat unlikely.)
    But, I do agree that if you want to argue about something, the thing to argue about is what the climate sensitivity is, rather than whether the CO2 bands are saturated, whether the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, whether the rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is due to our emissions, whether several years of flat temperature trend constitutes a falsification of AGW, and all other sorts of false controversies.
    It would be nice to see some skeptics come down clear and hard on that point. Perhaps you guys could contribute more to the real scientific issues if there wasn’t so much noise from that side drowning out the more reasonable voices.

  221. As Andy Rooney would say: Did you ever notice that the more words a person uses, the less they have to say?

  222. There has always been a negative feedback mechanism. It is called the water cycle. The ocean surface warms from short and long wave radiation, evaporation occurs (evaporation itself is a cooling mechanism for the water), and leads to increased humidity. On shore air flow updrafts brings the humid air into contact with colder air over land, it condenses into droplets, and falls as precipitation, which is yet another cooling event. Water vapor can’t just build and build. It will set up the precipitation cycle. Sorry, but I still can’t see the anthropogenic signal buried in the noise of such a cycle. The trend seen in the last century can entirely be caused (modeled and confirmed by observations) by internal natural oceanic oscillations right up to today.

  223. ok Joel, for clarification, what is the precise verified model for c02 forcing causing a water vapour feedback? It takes much more energy to heat the oceans by1C than it does to heat the air by 1C – effectively, heat doesn’t automatically flow from a warm to a cold zone, but is dependent on its properties of the two factors. air can’t transfer heat to oceans, even if they are warmer, since air doesn’t have the specific heat capacity. water vapour “heat” can’t penetrate oceans either, and that acts a more powerful ghg than c02.
    Try and convince otherwise!

  224. “It would be nice to see some skeptics come down clear and hard on that point. Perhaps you guys could contribute more to the real scientific issues if there wasn’t so much noise from that side drowning out the more reasonable voices.”
    HUH. Could DEFINITELY say the same thing about the “believer” side.
    And furthermore….for the skeptic side it is “science business as usual.”
    The burden of proof is upon the party that sets forth a fantastic theory.
    Prove it, Joel. Show forth the evidence.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  225. Stephen Wilde (00:59:32) :
    Mike Jonas (02:36:46) :
    Louis Hissink (03:11:00) :
    Thanks for your response. I still think that, since the fossil fuel use/CO2 increase rate linkage is demonstrably false, the MWP/800 year delay mechanism is worthy of analysis and research. Do you suppose a grant from NASA…. Never mind.

  226. Alarmists standing tall…
    Just look at all the polar bears they’re dead you see?
    And all the terrible CO2 for ten years straight is off the charts!!
    The seas are boiling!! The ice is melting!!! The methane’s killing everyone!!!
    Greenland’s greening!!! Antarctica has sparked the rising seas OH MY!!!!
    And speaking of those rising seas, it turns out they are all becoming acid
    don’t you know? So this vacation keep you feet and toes away from all the
    boiling, gurgling, popping hydrochloric surf!!! Or maybe you should stay at home the surf will come to you!! And all the greatest climatologists and scientists agree, you’re gonna die, just listen now, if you don’t do just what
    we say, you better kneel down and pray, because the end is near, you see?
    We’re all much smarter than you are and you will die from what we said, the things above and so much more… you just don’t know what you’re in for.
    So you be good and pay your way and thank the good ol’ USA, cause
    politicians help us all… and if you don’t believe just shut up and move to the back.
    If you don’t, your children die, just wait and see…
    Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

  227. Joel Shore (13:53:07) : “The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
    What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up.

    But under this mechanism, the lower levels and the surface cannot warm faster than the upper levels where the warming originates. Here are the relevant temperatures :
    http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/TropicsTroposphereGraph_LowRes.jpg
    Methinks you have some explaining to do.
    Note : Data graphed is for the whole available period, from Hadcrut3 (surface) and UAH (LT, MT). I use the tropics because that’s where the IPCC say the warming mostly occurs. See panels c (greenhouse gases) and f (all “forcings”).
    http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/IPCCFig9p1_LowRes.jpg
    PS. Please stop saying that the planet as a whole is taking in more energy than it radiates, unless you can produce evidence. I and others have posted evidence that the oceans stopped warming around 2003 and have been cooling since about 2006 – concrete evidence that the planet as a whole is NOT taking in more energy than it radiates.
    Stephen Wilde (14:34:24) : “The assumption that the air controls the temperature of the Earth only holds good if there is no variation in the rate of energy release from the oceans. I thnk we now have enough evidence to indicate that that assumption is no longer helpful.
    Agree. Oceans are crucial. And see ‘April E Coggins’ below.
    Henry Galt (16:54:05) : “…. The yearly CO2 record correlates with yearly global temps. Hence ‘98, “hottest year on record” and ‘98, largest out-gassing in the recent CO2 record.
    http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/deltaco2vstemp.jpg
    On this time-frame, CO2 cannot be driving temperature – unless a sudden spike in CO2 can cause a simultaneous El Nino.
    April E. Coggins (19:19:46) : “We are also experiencing record cold.” (and others similarly).
    My guess is it’s caused by clouds. Both the PDO and the sun (and probably ENSO) affect the Earth’s cloud cover. As cloud cover decreases – as it did quite markedly up to around 2000 – more sunlight gets through to the oceans and warms them up. As cloud cover increases again – as it did from around 2000 onwards – the oceans similarly cool. But this is a fairly slow process, and the global climate has been warm over the last few years (the high point of the PDO cycle), so even after they have started cooling, the oceans are still warm, and hence the climate is still warm.
    My guess is that the cloud changes are local in nature, ie depending on specific local conditions, but, via the oceans, are global in eventual overall effect. So in a cooling phase, we can expect pockets of temporary cold weather (driven by local clouds) while the rest of the planet is driven more by SST and all the other usual factors. And this, I think, is what we are seeing today : there are increasing numbers of reports of local record cold temperatures, even though the “official” global temperature is still as warm as in the 1990s.
    [adapted from a post of mine on another thread]
    JimInIndy (21:54:30) : “… the MWP/800 year delay mechanism is worthy of analysis and research
    Agree.

  228. gtrip (21:22:19) :
    Did you ever notice…
    The important question today is : Will the Vikings go 16-0 ?
    Oh ya, and that BBC article rules!

  229. We’re all going to die, December 21st 2012, well, that is when the Mayan calendar ends..
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/2012-isnt-the-end-of-the-world-is-it-20091012-gtn9.html
    “At Cornell University in the United States, Ann Martin, who runs the “Curious? Ask an Astronomer” website, says people are scared.
    It’s too bad that we’re getting e-mails from fourth-graders who are saying that they’re too young to die,” Martin said. “We had a mother of two young children who was afraid she wouldn’t live to see them grow up.”
    Monkey see, monkey do.

  230. Gene Nemetz (23:40:49) :
    gtrip (21:22:19) :
    Did you ever notice…
    The important question today is : Will the Vikings go 16-0 ?
    Unfortunately….no The season is long and the man is old. Unless he can find some crack I think he is going to find out why football players retire early.
    But I will still be cheering for him….I just hate the build up as it usually has a let down. Just like the Warmist build up……but I am afraid…really afraid. that reality may not prevail.
    And yes, I did write that wuss from SC or werever he is from. I ripped him for claiming to be on the side of righteousness and then doing this.
    Being from AZ I will be calling and maybe approaching loser McCaom tomorrow. He also switched sides.

  231. I think I’ve seen enough record lows and Club of Rome postings for awhile.
    But do call your senators and insist they vote NO.

  232. Patrick Davis (00:00:14) :
    “We’re all going to die, December 21st 2012, well, that is when the Mayan calendar ends..”
    Isn’t it amazing that people actually believe this garbage? I wonder what they’ll all be doing on the 22nd? One thing’s for sure, it won’t be much of a Christmas for them – and especially for their kids.

  233. rob uk (13:13:47) :
    “Perhaps someone can explain how a Roman sea port of 2000 years ago in Kent UK can now be 2 miles inland.”
    If anything, the southeast of England is subsiding relative to sea level because of ongoing Alpine tectonics. All we are seeing here, with the Roman port now being 2 miles inland, is the effect of sedimentation outrunning subsidence. This is perfectly normal and natural: somewhere along the coast is being eroded and the detritus is being deposited somewhere along the coast, specifically, in this example, in the Richborough area of Kent.
    I’ve said before here that the concept of global sea level is probably about the same as the concept of a global temperature: It depends on how you measure it, where you measure it and when. The low countries (there’s a clue there for all you AGW disciples and believers out there…) of north west Europe are subsiding due to the tectonics I mentioned above and have been since The Alps started growing sometime in the early Tertiary period when Africa collided with Europe. Meanwhile, the northwest of Scotland and Norway are rising due to isostatic rebound after the last ice age.
    Where do you measure the global sea level ‘zero’ when all the land is moving up and down all the time? As Bob Dylan once so eloquently put it: “The carpet too is moving under you”.

  234. Roger Knights (18:53:48) :
    “Al Gore says: “A zebra cannot change its spots.”
    –The Stupidest Things Ever Said by Politicians, p. 54”
    On the contrary, it may be the smartest thing he has ever said….

  235. From my local English language newspaper here in tropical Thailand.
    “Floods cause chaos in Pattaya
    During the afternoon of the 11th October and throughout the night, the heavens opened up over the skies of Pattaya with black threatening clouds,
    lightning and then letting loose a tempest that severely hit the area causing widespread chaos just about everywhere leaving most of the city under water. Most of the main through ways such as Sukhumvit Road were transformed into Venice style canals with traffic stuck or unable to pass through. Many local communities suffered rising water levels that soon caused flooding to their homes and businesses. For years City Hall has been trying to solve the problem of flooding with cleaning up existing drains and providing new drains in many areas, but even they could not cope with this weekend’s disastrous event. An act of nature not normal for this time of year in the region, but one we will probably have to get used to due to changes in weather patterns around the world caused by global warming.
    I emphasised the last sentence because it is completely 180 degrees wrong. Extremely heavy downpours are the norm here towards the end of the wet season which is where we are here weatherwise.
    Meanwhile, the top story on the BBC World website is still their about turn on global warming.

  236. Pamela Gray says:

    There has always been a negative feedback mechanism. It is called the water cycle. The ocean surface warms from short and long wave radiation, evaporation occurs (evaporation itself is a cooling mechanism for the water), and leads to increased humidity. On shore air flow updrafts brings the humid air into contact with colder air over land, it condenses into droplets, and falls as precipitation, which is yet another cooling event. Water vapor can’t just build and build. It will set up the precipitation cycle.

    There are several confusions here:
    (1) Condensation is not a cooling mechanism. It is a warming mechanism (i.e., it releases latent heat). So, the effect of evaporation / condensation is the transport of some heat from the surface up into the free troposphere, and this is known and accounted for. And, in fact, I’m this is essentially what leads to the negative lapse rate feedback that is incorporated in the climate models.
    (2) What you are talking about are processes that redistribute heat in the troposphere. In fact, the troposphere is well-mixed and temperatures in the troposphere tend to be set by the physics involved, e.g., in the tropics the temperature structure tends to follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate. What is important for cooling or warming are mechanisms that actually change either the amount of solar energy absorbed or the amount of infrared radiation that escapes into space and thus change the energy balance in the troposphere, not just redistributing the heat (except to the extent that the redistribution of heat changes the amount radiating back out into space and, as I noted, this is already accounted for in the negative lapse rate feedback). A change in greenhouse gas levels changes the amount of infrared radiation that escapes into space.
    (3) I agree that water vapor does not build and build. If the temperature rises, it does not take long for a new “equilibrium” to be established. However this new equilibrium will be with larger absolute humidity such that relative humidity remains roughly constant. [“Equilibrium” in quotes because the atmosphere is not really in equilibrium…but the point is that the new average absolute humidity will increase as the world warms.]

  237. P Wilson says:

    ok Joel, for clarification, what is the precise verified model for c02 forcing causing a water vapour feedback? It takes much more energy to heat the oceans by1C than it does to heat the air by 1C – effectively, heat doesn’t automatically flow from a warm to a cold zone, but is dependent on its properties of the two factors. air can’t transfer heat to oceans, even if they are warmer, since air doesn’t have the specific heat capacity. water vapour “heat” can’t penetrate oceans either, and that acts a more powerful ghg than c02.

    Yes, the oceans are a large source of thermal inertia which is why there is talk of the “warming in the pipeline”. However, air can transfer heat to the oceans. The fact that the heat capacity is low means that it is a slow process but that is just another way of saying that the oceans have a lot of thermal inertia.
    Mike Jonas says:

    But under this mechanism, the lower levels and the surface cannot warm faster than the upper levels where the warming originates. Here are the relevant temperatures :
    http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/TropicsTroposphereGraph_LowRes.jpg
    Methinks you have some explaining to do.
    Note : Data graphed is for the whole available period, from Hadcrut3 (surface) and UAH (LT, MT). I use the tropics because that’s where the IPCC say the warming mostly occurs. See panels c (greenhouse gases) and f (all “forcings”).
    http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/IPCCFig9p1_LowRes.jpg

    Actually, you are wrong in your description of what determines the temperature structure in the tropics. It is not determined by where the additional radiative forcing is because of large role of convection and subsistence in mixing the troposphere. In fact, the structure of the warming predicted by the climate models is pretty much independent of where the forcing occurs. Here is a comparison of the structure of the warming predicted by a warming due to increased CO2 and one due to increased solar forcing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ Note that the only way to really distinguish these two forcings here is their different influence on the stratosphere (which, because of its temperature increasing with altitude is stable and does not get rapidly mixed like the troposphere does)…and the cooling of the stratosphere that is predicted by the greenhouse forcing mechanism is what is observed. (Some of that cooling is due to stratospheric ozone depletion, although apparently both the magnitude and vertical structure of the cooling in the stratosphere lead to the conclusion that a significant part of it is due to increasing GHGs.)
    (Unlike the IPCC plot that you show, in the RealClimate plot the amount of solar forcing has been turned up so it produces the same magnitude of warming as the increase in greenhouse gases. The problem with the plot that you show is that it wasn’t made to resolve the structure of the warming for the warming mechanisms like solar that aren’t believed to have contributed very much to the 20th century warming. So, for example, all that you can say from the contours on the solar plot is that the surface in the tropics warms 0 – 0.2 C and further up in the troposphere it warms 0.2-0.4 C. Alas, this is compatible with any amplification factor between the surface and mid/upper troposphere of 1 to infinity.)
    As for the plots you show of the temperature trends at the surface and lower- and mid-troposphere in the tropics, there are several issues that you have ignored:
    (1) The mid-troposphere (T_2) temperature is actually a sampling of a wide range of temperatures centered about the mid-troposphere but also including a significant tail into the stratosphere. Because of this tail and the fact that the stratosphere is cooling (in fact more rapidly than the troposphere is warming), the trend gets contaminated. There is also possibly some contamination of even the lower troposphere trend, although this is still the subject of debate.
    (2) The UAH and RSS satellite data sets for the LT still disagree significantly in the tropics with the RSS showing more of a positive trend. (The agreement between them is better for the global trends, with the UAH still lower but within the quoted errorbars.)

    PS. Please stop saying that the planet as a whole is taking in more energy than it radiates, unless you can produce evidence. I and others have posted evidence that the oceans stopped warming around 2003 and have been cooling since about 2006 – concrete evidence that the planet as a whole is NOT taking in more energy than it radiates.

    As is often the case, you are focussing too much on short-term fluctuations rather than the longer term trend. And, actually, one of the more recent papers that you or someone else posted does find a statistically-significant warming trend as inferred from the steric sea level rise since 2003, although it is admittedly only a modest trend. The longer-term trend in ocean heat content is very clear.

  238. geoffchambers (02:03:48) 10-10-09:
    “The latest example is Rereke Whakaaro on the UK TV ad thread, who picks up the fact that one of the British ministers responsible for this dire Orwellian propaganda campaign, Joan Ruddock, is an ex-chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and then accuses CND of being finance by Moscow Gold.”
    I am sorry you have taken offence at my post.
    In an earlier post I drew a parallel between the television commercial and the propaganda techniques used in the first half of the twentith century, a theme echoed by several other contributors.
    It was TonyB (at 15:38:44) who first mentioned that Joan Ruddock was previously a chair for CND.
    So, in my mind, I linked these two concepts and then combined them with my knowledge that, up until about 1958, the Soviets had sponsored an organisation known as the World Peace Council that sought to subvert the activities of the peace movement. When that was seen for what it was, the Soviets changed tactics and started funding various peace movement organisations through proxies and sometimes bogus companies and trusts.
    This sponsorship was part of a Cold War strategy designed to keep pressure on the Government of the Day, and so limit the deployment of US weapons in the UK (and other parts of Europe).
    This is well documented in the biographies of Stanislav Lunev (ex GRU), and Oleg Kalugin (ex KGB). In fact Lunev goes so far as to say that this was a, “hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost”.
    Further opinion can be found in the book, “Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union”, by Richard Felix Staar.

  239. Well Joel, all good [trends] must come to an end, at least for a time 🙂
    With the recent Levitus 2009 OHC update, where did the heat go, or will it be recycled back into the oceans? Wouldn’t that qualify for a perpetuum mobile?
    Just for grins, what is your interpretation of the deep drop in OHC through June 09? Confirmation of climate model simulations? Once the heat is removed into space, what is the likely response of near surface and LT temperatures?
    So many questions.
    Also, the UAH/RSS Tropics discrepancy has been addressed indicating UAH is the more accurate. Sorry, even Tamino had to cry uncle there after he assassinated the authors and they gave him a well deserved spanking.
    Randall R. M. and B. M. Herman (2008) Using Limited Time Period Trends as a Means to Determine Attribution of Discrepancies in Microwave Sounding Unit . J. Geophs. Res – Atmospheres 113 D05105, doi:10.1029/2007JD008864.
    This is also discussed by Christy and Douglass here:
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

  240. “Did you ever notice that the more words a person uses, the less they have to say?” gtrip
    “For the dream comes through much effort and the voice of a fool through many words.” Ecclesiastes 5:3
    Read the Bible yourself and cut out the middleman is what I recommend.

  241. Joel Shore makes good points in his (20:52:05) comment. The CO2 physics is pretty well understood and he has tried to explain it quite well here.
    I also accept as a fact that doubling CO2 provides about 1 C warming (without feedbacks).
    It is the feedbacks which I do not buy. The science of feedbacks is definitely not yet settled.

  242. DR says:

    Just for grins, what is your interpretation of the deep drop in OHC through June 09?

    Well, if you are talking about this http://i34.tinypic.com/dev5ld.png then my interpretation is that ocean heat content bounces up and down somewhat over time but with a long term upward trend over the past 30 years. If you want to conclude that it is some sort of dramatic new downward trend, I would only note that such a conclusion would have been wrong if you made it in early 1998, early 2001, or late 2002 on the basis of similar steep drops. What makes you think that this time is somehow dramatically different? Short-term fluctuations happen. They’ve happened in the past and they will happen in the future.

    Also, the UAH/RSS Tropics discrepancy has been addressed indicating UAH is the more accurate. Sorry, even Tamino had to cry uncle there after he assassinated the authors and they gave him a well deserved spanking.

    I don’t think there is a general opinion yet that this is settled. Care to give me a cite to what you are talking about in regards to Tamino? I just did a search over on his website and couldn’t find what you were talking about (although I didn’t have much to go on).

  243. john ratcliffe (13:00:36) :
    Denmark’s chief climate negotiator resigns
    Thomas Becker, right hand of incoming COP15 president Connie Hedegaard, has been relieved of duty with immediate notice.
    http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2325
    Is this a serious development?

    Article in Danish language::
    Chef-exit skader næppe klimaaftale
    http://www.berlingske.dk/klima/chef-exit-skader-naeppe-klimaaftale
    Thomas Becker was to be the Danish Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard’s chief negotiator at the Copenhagen climate summit:
    “Årsagen til Thomas Beckers exit er, at han bl.a. brugte 15.734 kr. på en restaurant i Bangkok uden at kunne aflevere de nødvendige bilag, ligesom han betalte repræsentation for 37 flasker rødvin og 41 gin-tonic til 39 personer, hvilket var at gå over stregen, mente man i ministeriets departement.”
    which translates to something like (apologies on behalf of Google and myself for the grammar):
    “The cause of Thomas Becker’s exit is that he, spent 15,734 Danish Crowns (~USD 3,100) at a restaurant in Bangkok without being able to deliver the necessary documents and he paid the representation of 37 bottles of red wine and 41 gin-tonic to 39 people, which was to cross the line, it was felt in the ministry.”
    They are saving the planet, allright.

  244. Carsten Arnholm, Norway (14:24:12) :
    john ratcliffe (13:00:36) :
    $3100 US is a heck of a bill in a Bangkok restaurant! Must have been good wine.

  245. Joel Shore
    RSS and UAH
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/rss-and-uah/
    [quote]Note: Having compared RSS and UAH to the HadAT2 data set, I find that there’s more divergence between RSS and HadAT2 at the 1992 step than between USH and HadAT2. So I withdraw my opinion that the step change represents a reason to prefer RSS over UAH.[/quote]
    Tamino made the mistake of trashing the authors Randall and Herman until one showed up.
    RSS warm bias discussed here as well:
    http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~kih/TRACK/PERSPECT/Do-models-warm-the-upper-troposphere-too-much-final.pdf
    There are others.

  246. Joel Shore (10:06:06)
    re:
    ok Joel, for clarification, what is the precise verified model for c02 forcing causing a water vapour feedback? It takes much more energy to heat the oceans by1C than it does to heat the air by 1C – effectively, heat doesn’t automatically flow from a warm to a cold zone, but is dependent on its properties of the two factors. air can’t transfer heat to oceans, even if they are warmer, since air doesn’t have the specific heat capacity. water vapour “heat” can’t penetrate oceans either, and that acts a more powerful ghg than c02.
    you replied:
    “Yes, the oceans are a large source of thermal inertia which is why there is talk of the “warming in the pipeline”. However, air can transfer heat to the oceans. The fact that the heat capacity is low means that it is a slow process but that is just another way of saying that the oceans have a lot of thermal inertia.”
    I asked for the verified model, whichwould include the physical process and the data. You give conjecture. NASA don’t have one. The IPCC don’t…
    Heat flows out of oceans and into the air – which is a solar forcing. Thats because oceans retain heat due to their heat capacity, whilst air doesn’t retain heat because it has little heat capacity. The thermal energy to heat oceans is just to weak.
    Being a physicist, surely know that. The fact that air has little heat capacity, and that temps drop as soon as the sun is blocked or else night begins, whislt oceans don’t change temperature on that magnitude under the same conditions only demonstrate once principle – that oceans govern air temperatures, which in turn are governed by solar forcing.

  247. OK. I have heard it said many times by climate/weather people that COLD air originates in Siberia. In addition, the amount of snow over there and how early if falls is a key indicator of how cold it potentially can get.
    Oct 12, 2008: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/EuAsia/2008/ims2008286_asiaeurope.gif
    Oct 12, 2009: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/EuAsia/2009/ims2009285_asiaeurope.gif
    The snow has come early to interior Russia this year……

  248. Joel, I am also interested in how you think that the lw radiation above a body of water can heat that body of water to the degree that “heat is in the pipeline” (and not in the mm of skin that is immediately evaporated back into the air). Please provide equations.

  249. Joel Shore (20:52:05) :
    No, I am not that particular skeptical physicist. I am a skeptical retired civil engineer with an interest in the climate debate. I have made a concerted effort to wrap my mind around the heat retaining effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because I have seen (what seem to me) so many simplistic and/or faulty explanations of the role of CO2 from both sides of the controversy.
    While I don’t fully agree with the remainder of your reply, I thank you for your contributions to this thread and your venturing into the domain of skeptics.

  250. P Wilson and Pamela Gray: The question of how the detailed heat transfers work, e.g., how much of the ocean warming comes from direct absorption of solar radiation and how much from heat transfer from the atmosphere, is an interesting one that I am not up on the details of…and, it is probably important in determining how rapidly the climate system equilibrates to a change in radiative forcing. However, these details can’t somehow get you around the fact that, when there is a radiative imbalance with the Earth system receiving more energy than it emits back out into space, it has to warm up in order to relieve that imbalance.
    P Wilson, in particular: The statements that you are making are just various ways of saying that the oceans have a much larger thermal inertia than the atmosphere, which is true. However, that doesn’t mean that the atmosphere can’t transfer heat to the oceans via conduction, convection, and radiation. Surely, you can verify this on a small scale by taking an ice cube out of the freezer or just a cup of cold water…Over time, it will warm up.
    By the way, for those claiming that the greenhouse effect for CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is saturated, here is a good webpage http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm that has links to various peer-reviewed papers that have directly measured the increase the greenhouse effect in two ways: (1) By using satellite data to look at the decrease in emitted radiation from the Earth over time at those frequencies where the various gases have absorption peaks. (2) By looking at the increase in downward IR radiation at the earth’s surface (in one paper, again spectrally resolved).
    Robert Austin says:

    While I don’t fully agree with the remainder of your reply, I thank you for your contributions to this thread and your venturing into the domain of skeptics.

    Thanks, Robert!

  251. Yo, Joel:
    I got this chart off of the WUWT blogroll: click
    Why don’t you tell us what you think of it?
    Here’s another one: click
    It was also in a recent WUWT guest post by Dr Akasofu. You’ve been invited to post your own article here. You could write about how no chart is valid unless it has your approval. Sort of like when no paper gets peer reviewed by Science or Nature unless it has at least some gratuitous alarmist language.
    And here’s another chart. Maybe you could explain to us hoi polloi what’s wrong with this one: click
    [Robert Austin: Yes, a handful of alarmists post here. That’s the difference between the “BEST SCIENCE” site and censorship-prone alarmist blogs like realclimate, climateprogress, tamino, etc. If Joel Shore was a skeptical scientist instead of a true believer, and he tried to post on those sites, he would be censored. His posts would be deleted. Alarmist blogs wouldn’t censor the comments of skeptics if they had arguments that could withstand debate.]

  252. It seems that the alarmists depend on the PDO, since most people don’t live long enough to feel the cycles… Most people trust the alarmist physicists to their peril… great graphs, Smokey…
    Still waiting for catastrophe since 1980…
    Mike Bryant
    PS Ain’t been and ain’t gonna be no stinkin’ catastrophe…

  253. Its easy to understand what has happened. Since air temperatures are on a decrease trend, AGW’s have lost interest in the air and are now focussed on the oceans, and saying that its all happening there instead. Whewn the oceans don’t form a parallel identity to models and computer simulations, they’ll say its in the stratosphere instead, and when thats disproved they’ll concoct another anthroipogenic c02 formula on some other chain of climatic event.
    Its like Empedocles on Etna

  254. “”” Joel Shore (08:45:56) :
    By the way, for those claiming that the greenhouse effect for CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is saturated, here is a good webpage http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm that has links to various peer-reviewed papers that have directly measured the increase the greenhouse effect in two ways: “””
    Thanks for that web site Joel.
    Now as to the CO2 “saturation” effect. I’ve never seen a formal definition of “saturation” as used in regards to CO2 (or othere GHGs) but one might reasonably presume that the implication is that the amount of CO2 we have has already absorbed all the LWIR spectral range energy that it can. Even if that were true, all that really means is that if CO2 increases, the same amount of LWIR gets absorbed in an even thinner near surface layer of atmosphere. One would also expect that the absorption of the same amount of energy in a thinner less massive air layer would result in a slightly increased air temperature resulting from the transfer of that energy to the N2/O2 molecules. But of course that warmed air layer now itself emits LWIR correspoonding to its temperture, and part of that emission tires to escape to space; but now can get re-absorbed in the next layer of CO2 containing air. The multiple thermal emission and subsequent GHG re-absorption cascade, is a likely explanation for the satellite observations you reference; and of course your conclusion is true; even if there is enough CO2 to absorb every single surface emitted LWIR photon in a specific spectral range; that will not stop the process of slowing the escape of that LWIR because of multiple re-absorptions.
    I’m sorry I can’t offer any more than a hand waving explanation of this; but I did once try a formal rigorous analysis of the cascade process, and it quickly got out of my mathematical toolkit.
    And of course anything that slows or delays (It doesn’t stop it) the LWIR escape, just allows that much more solar energy to arrive during that increased escape delay, which means more warming. Well of course that is the situation, absent the well known water vapor feedback; and the cloud cover adjustment will soon kick in to oppose what seems like an endless CO2 bonanza.
    And don’t forget, that the very concept of a “climate sensitivity”; that nonsense dreamed up by Arrhenius claiming a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature; or is it W/m^2 forcing that is logarithmic with CO2 abundance; implies that there is indeed a saturation effect in play; although not the one people think of.
    I believe it was Phil (hope I’m not misquoting him) said that for low CO2 abunbdance the relationship is linear with CO2 (must be the W/m^2 “forcing”); and for intermediate levels of CO2, the relationship is logartithmic, and then for high CO2 levels it changes to square root of CO2.
    If what Phil says is true then of course the relationship isn’t really any of those functions; they just can curve fit portions of the complete function.
    Well I can always do that with Bessel functions or Tchebychev polynomials or any other set of orthogonal funtions; but none of that implies there is any real physical causation that follows that mathematical formula.
    So I don’t doubt that in a lab experiment with dry air (why do they always do atmospheric experiments with dry air), that the (air) warming does continue to increase with increasing CO2, satuation or not.
    Too bad about that ocean water cycle isn’t it; somehow the oceans manage to screw up all the laboratory dry air experiments; well except the ones that Gaia does out in her laboratory, complete with perfect modelling of the water vapor feedback effects.
    But back to that skeptic skeptic page you referred us to. I’m not sure what delta Brightness Temperature means. In my many years of dealing with radiometry and photometry terminology; I quickly learned to avoid that word “brightness”, since it has a colloquial street meaning that bears no relationship to any formal scientific usage of the term.
    But be that as it may; the interestign part of that graph was out there on the right where there is all that CH4 mayhem going on. Isn’t it amazing; there;s not a hint of any water vapor in that spectrum. You say this is an actual satellite observation from this IRIS satellite ? That is toally amazing that NASA can find not a hint of any water vapor in the atmosphere from a satellite.
    But it is that CH4 mayhem that intrigues me. All that mess around 1300 looks dramatic compared to the almost invisible little dimple around 970 for CO2. No wonder CH4 is such a fearsome pollutant.
    Well I see that there is another CO2 dip down at the bottom at 700-770.
    I don’t know why IR folks use upsidedown numbers for their spectra. If they want to relate them to energy; why not simply plot them as Electron Volts ? I prefer wavelengths in Microns or nm which is something we can easily measure. Not many people go about trying to measure the frequency of electromagnetic radiation at around 30 TeraHertz.
    But I see that the center of the scale is equivalent to 10 microns wavelength which happily is close to the black bod peak at the earth’s mean temperature of about 288 K (10.1 microns).
    So a little bit of stick in the sand calculation tells me that all that CH4 mayhem takes place between about 7.3 and 8.2 microns wavelength. It is easy to see that the well known Ozone hole runs from about 9-10 microns wavelength.
    Now there are some simple things we know about black body spectral shapes (which real spectra are bounded by). Only 25% of the total spectral energy is in wavelengths shorter than the peak, so taking 10.1 microns as the peak for 288K we would have only 1/4 of the total global emissions at wabvelengths less than that, for Ozone and Methane to attack. Well I see that only 12% or less of that spectrum would be below 8.2 microns with maybe 7-8% remaining below 7.3 microns; so it appears to me that about 4-5% of the total mean global LWIR emission spectrum is in the wavelength range where CH4 is active. sure doens’t sound like any terror pollutant to me.
    Well I realize that the earth isn’t actually an isotropic isothemal emitter of 288K black body radiation, and that much of the emissions come from somewhat hotter surefaces that 288 K. So for those regions, (tropical deserts) it seems that methen would have more radiation to attack; but I don’t see any way it could ever get up to 10% of the radiation energy available. And of course for the polar regions where the emission spectrum peaks even longer than 10.1 microns; as much as up to 15 microns in the coldest places; well there just isn’t much emission to trap anyway; is there.
    I can’t find anything to support CH4 being 25 times worse that CO2; unless it is in just the capture crossection of CH4 versus CO2.
    Too bad that NASA can’t find any water vapor in earth’s atmosphere; and they just vandalized the moon to look for water on the moon, and they can’t even find it in earth;’s atmosphere; amazing !

  255. Today is International Skeptics Day! YAY!
    I notice there’s no International Alarmists Day. And I think I know why: every day is alarmist day! They’re frightening themselves half to death.

  256. Joel Shore, Joel Shore, Joel Shore, Joel Shore, Joel Shore,
    Would still like to hear your ideas, your opinion re: earf *(sic) avg. surface temperature at/about 288 deg. K also coinciding with the spectral peak at 10 um, the ‘atmosphereic window’ for IR bounded (obviously) on either side by other gasous absorption incl. CO2.
    SURELY you’ve covered this subject as it relates to the sensitivity of temperature changes related to atmosphereic CO2 concentrations, as the the ‘closing’ of said atmosphereic window occurs from either side?
    As an aside, I’m really, really beginning to believe this is all one massive charade, the trivial answers by trolls like Joel are well-known and damning (to his points/POV/their AGW argument), and *this* is only a game played by those still working up to the ‘answers’ and reality of the physics, like the coincidence of the earf’s IR emissive spectral peak (and proportional to temp as T raised 4th power) and that of its surface temperature …
    .
    .
    .
    * IF Joel can cite ‘globalwarmingart’ websites as authoratative technical references I can call the ‘earth’ earf.
    .

  257. George: Not exactly sure how to respond to your diatribe. Here is the full paper from Nature: http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~kl/research/kl/class/152/atmosphericradiation/week10/additional_reading/Harris_GHG.pdf so you can knock yourself out reading and understanding it in more detail.

    That is totally amazing that NASA can find not a hint of any water vapor in the atmosphere from a satellite.

    What you are looking at is just a difference in absorption spectrum between the beginning and end of the period…not the absorption spectrum itself. (It is also a clear sky spectrum, so water vapor should be there but not clouds.) Having not read the full paper yet myself, I am not sure what they have to say about detecting any change in water vapor…However, since water vapor is not well-mixed in the atmosphere, I think it would be difficult to do. Of course, what they would have to do is somehow control for the effect of changes in water vapor and I don’t know how they did that. (Much of that wavelength range is in the “infrared window” where water vapor does not absorb that much, although it does absorb some, particularly on each end.)

    I can’t find anything to support CH4 being 25 times worse that CO2; unless it is in just the capture crossection of CH4 versus CO2.

    Again, since the spectrum you see just shows the difference, what you are seeing is the total change in absorption that occurred in these particular bands during that period due to increasing CO2 and CH4 concentrations. CH4 is only 25X worse on a per molecule basis (at their present concentrations). However, there is a lot less CH4 in the atmosphere and the actual forcing due to the change in CO2 levels since the beginning of the industrial revolution is almost 4X larger than the forcing due to the change in CH4 levels (even though CH4 levels have already more than doubled).
    George, do you always take such an adversarial approach to scientific papers that you read? I mean it is fine to be skeptical but you seem to take the approach that if there is something that you don’t understand then that means that it must be garbage (unless I am seriously misreading your tone)?
    When I see something that other scientists claim, particularly in a reputable journal, I try first to understand it and think about where I may be wrong or misinterpretting before I launch into an attack on it.
    _Jim: Can you just tell me what your point is? What do you think the mechanism is by which the Earth’s temperature has its radiative emission peak about in the IR atmospheric window? And, what do you think this tells you?
    Also, I didn’t know that the absorption bands in the atmosphere is such a controversial topic that you wouldn’t believe the ‘globalwarmingart’ diagram. It happened to be the easiest such diagram to find on the web, but if you think there is something wrong with it or have a source that you prefer, then by all means, tell us.
    By the way, I think you have a pretty warped definition of the word “troll” if includes me but not people like Smokey or P Wilson!

  258. Joel complains:
    “By the way, I think you have a pretty warped definition of the word ‘troll’ if includes me but not people like Smokey or P Wilson!”
    I didn’t say you were a troll. I said you were an alarmist, which you are. I’ve even suggested that if you really believe that runaway global warming will be caused by a minor trace gas, you could be suffering from CD. But a troll? No.
    Nor am I, nor is P Wilson. We’re still skeptics, which means that you haven’t made an adequate case for CO2=AGW. Not that you haven’t tried, with thousands upon thousands of words appealing to authority, citing censoring alarmist blogs, and worshiping at the alter of the climate peer review clique.
    Heck, you might as well make your case in your own article here. Get your thoughts together, tell your boss you haven’t been actually wasting company time writing endless article-length posts here and elsewhere all day long, and then make the very best argument you can that a tiny trace gas is gonna cause climate catastrophe.
    Or, you could continue taking daily pot shots from the sidelines. But if you do, expect skeptics to push back when your comments don’t prove anything except GIGO.

  259. Smokey says:

    Yo, Joel:
    I got this chart off of the WUWT blogroll: click
    Why don’t you tell us what you think of it?

    At this point, I assume you are just goading me since I’ve told you exactly what is wrong with it in two other threads in the last few days. I am not sure what the fact that you use a graph that you know to be outdated (and even erroneous near one) end says about your actual commitment to the truth as opposed to propagandizing, but I’ll let others contemplate that while I just repeat what I said in this thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint :

    What is silly…and actually quite frustrating…is that only yesterday I linked to a peer-reviewed paper that showed that the more recent data that your figure is based on shows that the correlation illustrated in that figure breaks down dramatically (and that it actually starts to break down even in the time period shown by that figure but is hidden by some errors in doing the interpolation at the endpoint). Thus, the warming over the last ~30 years cannot be explained by this supposed correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. Yet, you link to that figure again again! That seems like willful ignoring of evidence to me.

    here is the link: http://magee.vsb.bc.ca/dsheldan/climate/pdf/Laut_2003.pdf It is worth noting that one of the original co-authors of the paper containing the data that you showed (Lassen) was on the new paper that updated that data in 2000 ( http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/globcat/globwarm/solar-00.htm ) and his co-author on that new paper notes, “The curves diverge after 1980 and it’s a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.” And, although he says they can’t be sure what is responsible, he says, “It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect.”

    Smokey says:

    Here’s another one: click
    It was also in a recent WUWT guest post by Dr Akasofu.

    Just drawing a line through a graph and saying “recovery from the Little Ice Age” is not a theory, it is just putting a name on our ignorance. Why is such a recovery from the Little Ice Age still occurring? What are the actual forcings involved? (The Little Ice Age may have been the result of decreased solar irradiance, although there is still some uncertainty about that…but most of the rise in the last 50 years can’t be explained by changes in solar irradiance.)
    And, why is the Earth “recovering from the Little Ice Age,” whatever that means, and not responding to the known forcing due to greenhouse gases that we can actually measure the radiative effect of (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm )?

    And here’s another chart. Maybe you could explain to us hoi polloi what’s wrong with this one: click

    That is simply a public opinion poll. It is hardly surprising that during bad economic times and with two ongoing wars, the public is more concerned about immediate issues than something that is somewhat more abstract and whose effects will mainly be felt well down the road.
    And, there are also polls out there that show that the public supports the current climate / energy bill in Congress. The result one gets in a poll depends a lot on how the question is structured.

    Robert Austin: Yes, a handful of alarmists post here. That’s the difference between the “BEST SCIENCE” site and censorship-prone alarmist blogs like realclimate, climateprogress, tamino, etc. If Joel Shore was a skeptical scientist instead of a true believer, and he tried to post on those sites, he would be censored. His posts would be deleted. Alarmist blogs wouldn’t censor the comments of skeptics if they had arguments that could withstand debate.

    No, they moderate comments because they want to keep the signal-to-noise ratio at a reasonable level rather than dealing with the same absurb arguments and misstatements over and over again. You still see lots of “noise” from skeptics in the comments section on those sites. (Also, RealClimate seems to like you to be on-topic so they didn’t really want their comment section in another thread overrun with Yamal stuff before they had a chance to put together a post on it and let people put the comments in there.)
    Nearly everyone who has a blog on the internet on climate change or any other controversial topic and attracts a lot of comments has to deal with the dilemma of what to do about moderating it and there is no easy answer. Too little moderation and you just get the same discredited nonsense or tangential things shouted over and over again. Some “skeptics” like Roy Spencer and Roger Pielke Jr. have chosen not to allow any comments on their blogs.
    Also, the goals of RealClimate and this site are quite different. RealClimate is trying to explain the science as most climate scientists in the field currently understand it. Having the comments section completely dominated by nonsense and irrelevancy detracts from that mission. Here, Anthony is trying to raise questions and attract interest for ANY alternate point-of-view other than the prevailing theory and this has presumably led to his interest in a “lighter” hand in moderation, although I have certainly occasionally had part of a comment snipped and I tread lightly to avoid saying things I know are likely to be snipped.
    If I were running RealClimate, I think I would start censoring the comments of you and P Wilson, for example, and it is not because I feel that you are making such brilliant points that I can’t respond to them. If you think that, then quite frankly, you are deluding yourselves.

  260. Smokey says:

    I didn’t say you were a troll.

    No, but the poster whom I was responding to, _Jim, did.

  261. Joel Shore says:
    “If I were running RealClimate, I think I would start censoring the comments of you and P Wilson…”
    Don’t worry, they already do. And they censor plenty of other posters’ comments too, we read about it all the time here. Realclimate is its own little echo chamber, consisting of a small number of the same people who post most of the comments. They might as well be repeating Al Gore’s faxed talking points. Something like this:
    1. OK, listen up, people! Starting right now we’re going to stop referring to ‘global warming’. The damn planet is cooling while CO2 is still going up. So from now on, it’s ‘climate change’. Make sure everyone gets the memo.
    2. When we talk about sea ice, make absolutely certain you never mention the Southern Hemisphere! Or global sea ice for that matter. It’s Arctic ice extent, 24/7. And even though Arctic ice is growing again, always say that it’s getting thinner.
    3. Every time there’s a local heat wave, post that it’s caused by AGW. But when posts start coming in from around the world reporting much colder than seasonal weather everywhere, you are to repeat the mantra: “weather isn’t climate… weather isn’t climate… weather isn’t climate…”
    4. Since we don’t have the science on our side, always attack motives: skeptics are paid off by Big Oil and Big Tobacco. Ad hominem attacks remain a big part of our arsenal. Use them!
    5. Above all, always turn the scientific method on its head, and demand that skeptics have to prove that AGW doesn’t exist. Never accept a skeptic’s challenge to falsify natural climate variability, we’re getting killed on that one. Oh, and always put “skeptics” in quotation marks.

    Now Joel says we’re trolls. And he would censor our posts if he could. What a guy.

  262. Smokey…
    #6. C’mon, guys… you are physicists!!! Get on the “skeptics” websites and start refuting every single post that goes against the consensus!!! Use all those big scientific words and cause as much confusion as you possibly can… We’re running out of time… Heck… we all know it’s getting colder, so get out there… WUWT will let you post so post already… lots and lots of people read that blog if you can’t convince plumbers and geologists and meteorologists and engineers… You DON’T deserve any more government money…
    Remember that is our money! The taxpayers are too stupid to keep it from us….

  263. As the theory goes, AGW occurs because we’ve put 30% extra c02 into the atmosphere.
    1) Unproven assumption, since its based on unresolvable ice core data and selective proxies – ice proxies in the case of the IPCC
    2) Isotopic mass balances indicate’s 4% anthropogenic maximum (Segalstad)
    3) Increase in gas doesn’t mean increase in temperature (Try this with a long tube filled with as much c02 as can be found in the atmosphere, whilst taking its temperature during a 1 hour experiment at 4 points along the tube, and varying th etemperature between 0 and 30C Double and halve the amounts of c02. The temperatures remain the same)
    This explains why AGW has to concoct esoteric formulas to fudge straightforward empirical facts, even going so far as to pull eqations out of thin air to justify the numbers and produce something of a quagmire. The error formulator’s syndrome is that eleborate errors have to be framed to fit around the initial metaphysic.
    I’d be flattered to be censored at RC – not that censorship is a valid scientific process. However, I did once ask a question about why the temperature responded so immediately to the solar eclipse recently by plummetting 10C then returning back to normal immediately it was over. That was ground enough for cesorship.

  264. Mike Jonas (23:25:44)
    When a c02 case can’t be proven at the area where c02 is absorbing radiation at its sharp peaks 10metres from ground level its looked for else where to prop the notion that something eccentric is happening in the troposhere with c02. C02 in the upper troposhere absorbs and transmits at the shoulders at 5% the efficiency as its peaks – and over far greater distance due to its band separation – and this is where c02 competes with nitrogen and oxygen which absorb heat at that range. An wrong assumption is that heat does not vanish into space being trapped only by greenhouse gasses. heat sits or circulates in the atmosphere for several months due to the nitrogen and oxygen (99% of the atmosphere), and it would do so even if there were no such thing as greenhouse gasses. There are a million more oxygen and nitrogen molecules than c02 there, and absorb at a wider band of lengths, so its unknowable how much c02 absorbs and re-emits at the upper tropospheric level. It can’t be determined by equations for two dimensional objects as gases don’t have a surface. C02 is thin in the upper troposphere, – and absorbs over greater distances at this height – up to 10km, as there are a thousandth of co2 molecues as at its peak, where the feedback (or forcing in AGW terms) is occurring. if so, then gross global warming from c02 is 0.0002C. the density at the upper troposphere is a 10th as sea level, so if you were to ask how much heat the upper troposphere transmits to the lower – the answer would be none. c02 still absorb heat in the stratosphere, although becomes even more irrelevant as the shoulders disappear. yet transmission values for c02 are already low at
    this level. Most of the energy is thermalised through contact with nitrogen, water vapour and oxygen, before re-radiation takes place, so that the energy leaves the c02 absorbtion band

  265. Add:
    last sentence should be:
    yet transmission values for c02 are already low at GROUND-10 METRES level. Most of the energy is thermalised through contact with nitrogen, water vapour and oxygen, before re-radiation takes place, so that the energy leaves the c02 absorbtion band

  266. P Wilson: It is hard to know what to say about your posts about the radiative physics except that they are wrong from start to finish. I suggest that if you are interested in radiative physics of the atmosphere, you get a book and read it and actually learn rather than just talking nonsense. No scientists who are taken at all seriously on the climate or atmospheric science believe what you believe…NONE. Not even Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer. You are arguing about stuff that was basically all settled around half a century ago.

  267. Joel Shore (10:09:02) : “P Wilson: … get a book and read it and actually learn rather than just talking nonsense. … You are arguing about stuff that was basically all settled around half a century ago.
    For those of us trying to follow this argument – references/links are needed.

  268. Mike Jonas,
    A good link taking an historical point-of-view is here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0623
    I’m not sure of a good online resource is for more technical details, although I could recommend a couple of books that I have found useful:
    L.D. Danny Harvey, “Global Warming: The Hard Science”,
    Richard Goody, “Principles of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry”

  269. Better still, if you really hold the belief, watch An Inconvenient Truth, or read the book.
    All the celebrity A listers believe it, and they’re the ones in the know!

  270. Mike Jonas (13:49:53)
    Climatology is a new and difficult science without any precision. It has been seized on in the last 30 years by pulling equations out of physics and contorting them to fit the climate.
    In fact, no science really exists. It has taken the shape metaphysic in the style of Hegel – The starting points would be chemistry, spectroscopy, air pressure, the physics of heat and astronomy. Metaphyics puts man at the centre of the universe that a rational approach abhors, although rationality is based on observation and logic.
    “The Cooling Stars” by Henrik Svensmark
    Other than that, research papers in journals are the better option to gain a grasp of the subject.
    i daresay in years to come when the present paradigm/popular fashion has gone out of currency, as we learn more about how climate operates, the process of deduction from nominally self evident axioms should be a thing of the past.

  271. the physics of gas diffusion would be quite a good starting point too and highlights the problems of applying mechanical physics to gases. At the moment, how heat gets transmitted from one molecule to another and what happens to those molecules in gases is quite elusive as there are so many random variables involved. Physicist use the watts per square metre notion, although that analysis is only relevant to two dimensional objects.

  272. P Wilson: Do you understand what the field of remote sensing is? Do you understand that if you don’t think we have an understanding of the radiative physics of the atmosphere then you simply can’t believe, for example, the UAH temperature record? The satellite data set and the analysis of it is fundamentally based on our understanding of the radiative physics.

  273. Cao everyone,
    Im new to the forum and just wanted to introduce myself, my name is John and I’m form US. I’ve been a long time lurker who has finally decided to make an account and contribute.

  274. Hi everyone,
    Im new to the forum and just wanted to introduce myself, i’m David form Canada. I look forward too makeing a contribution here.

Comments are closed.