Open Thread

First!!! 🙂
Is it me, or there is a nice cold tongue forming along the Peruvian coast?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

UK leads the way in the energy price torture chamber:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/6280133/Energy-bills-could-hit-2000-by-2016.html

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.

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.

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

Excellent BBC article – at last.
“What Happened to Global Warming?” h/t Marc Morano

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.

I find it amusing that Nature has a blog post chiming in on the latest .gov scare video on climate change when the rest of Nature’s site is unquestioningly devoted to alarmism and includes mention of nutcases such as Al Gore and Joe Romm
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/full/climate.2009.102.html

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?

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about…
My earlier post…
UK leads the way to the energy-price torture chamber:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/6280133/Energy-bills-could-hit-2000-by-2016.html

For six days thou shalt work and do all thou art able. On the seventh the same and pound on the cable. – Old sailor’s rhyme.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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????

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.

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 ]

“…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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

The reality of the Copenhagen Climate Meetings, or is that the Copenhagen Socialist Money Sucking Ponzi Scheme.
http://tinyurl.com/yjec3q5
Libin nails it.

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.

“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”.

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.

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 ????

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

Juraj V.: You wrote, “Is it me, or there is a nice cold tongue forming along the Peruvian coast?”
If we look at the subsurface anomalies along the equatorial Pacific…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
…the cooler waters near the Peruvian coast are shown but there’s a lot more warm water down there that wants to rise to the surface.

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.

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.

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.

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”

Greens more likely thieves and liars, says shock study:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/08/greens_are_thieves_and_liars_say_trick_cyclists/

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.

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

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?

The cold coming out of Canada is brutal, at least by mid-October standards. Normally, air masses this extreme don’t start to appear until November….Canadian Prairies, the northern Great Plains, and the northern Rockies. In this broad area, temperatures will run 30 to as much as 40 degrees below normal this weekend, and many low temperature records will fall.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=4

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.

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

Roger Sowell (10:09:03) : Uncommon cold.
The new “green” power technologies will have to develope solar panels and windmills able to work under snow 🙂

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.

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.

DENVER (CBS4) ―
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.
http://cbs4denver.com/local/weather.denver.colorado.2.742188.html

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.

A lot of eyes are on the Phillies, where I am from, the world series champions last year.

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?”.

Ha-ha, when the cat’s away…

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.

…RECORD LOW MINIMUM TEMPERATURES REPORTED IN UTAH FOR OCTOBER 7TH…
STATION NEW RECORD OLD RECORD YEAR
ALPINE 30 TIED 30 1976
BOUNTIFUL-VAL VERDA 31 35 2007
BRIGHAM CITY 26 TIED 26 1969
BRYCE CANYON AIRPORT 18 TIED 18 1969
DELTA 19 26 1948
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/validProds.php?prod=RER&node=KSLC

_Jim (11:26:22) :

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

They got me 🙂 Thanks for the reading aid 🙂

…AT WILL ROGERS AIRPORT IN OKLAHOMA CITY WAS 51 DEGREES…BREAKS… RECORD OF 52 DEGREES…
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/validProds.php?prod=RER&node=KOUN
Where is global warming?
If not for the warming in the Southern States from the El Niño what would it be like in the USA today? El Niño warming will not happen every year so we will find out.

Even in Southern California near the Mexican border, in San Diego, there was a temp record broken :
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/validProds.php?prod=RER&node=KSGX

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

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.

AGHH:

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.

Very prophetic – they’ve just jumped back on with a resounding thud:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299426.stm

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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*

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.

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.

addendum: “absorbed there” – being the mid-higher tropospheric altitude

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

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!

I’m still working on this, but here’s something to consider:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm

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?

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.