Lindzen on climate science advocacy and modeling – “at this point, the models seem to be failing”

This is a letter professor Richard Lindzen of MIT sent to the Boston Globe and was published today. It is well worth the read.

https://i2.wp.com/alumweb.mit.edu/clubs/sw-florida/images/richardlindzen.jpg

KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present.

The claim that everything other than models represents “mere opinion and speculation’’ is also peculiar. Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.

Finally, given a generation of environmental propaganda, a presidential science adviser (John Holdren) who has promoted alarm since the 1970s, and a government that proposes funding levels for climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991, courage seems hardly the appropriate description – at least for scientists supporting such alarm.

Richard S. Lindzen
Cambridge
The writer is Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Advertisements

184 thoughts on “Lindzen on climate science advocacy and modeling – “at this point, the models seem to be failing”

  1. I love you Richard. Oh maybe love is too strong a term. No, actually I think I was right the first time, for your quiet determination a statue should be built in your honour.

  2. Exactly! To cite Richard Feynman – climate models do not have “something else [that] comes out right” which is serious since it may mean that our understanding of the climate is insufficient.

    http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

    There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

  3. Don’t worry, they’ll have the fudge factors in the models corrected real soon now so that they will in the future predict more global warming-caused snow fall.

  4. Emanuel and Curry are cut of the same cloth. They make occasionally make a guest post here and there, which on the surface seems objective. When one reads the post again the hidden advocacy becomes clear. Confirmation bias is strong with this two.

  5. I asked my mother why she checked daily weather reports when I was a toddler. Even then I knew they were more pathetic than prophetic.

    Global climate change seems a strange crux for environmental arguments, when what many consider to be the causes of such change generally consists of waste, excess, apathy, and indolence, anyhow, all of which are behaviors humanity has reason to curb.

    I’d rather stop looking for enormous, catastrophic, cataclysmic reasons to stop burning fossil fuels, et cetera, and start taking the “small” reasons for what they seem to be to many people: perfectly sound judgments against sophomoric behavior.

    …Behaviors which, of course, are to be named by oneself — not me. In the end, I’m hardly an environmental activist.

    Thanks for Your Ink, Sir,

    -BothEyes

  6. Lindzen has proved time and again to be the adult in this debate. He continues to be the adult. Everyone should find on Youtube the global warming symposium held at MIT in November. You can see Lindzen is the adult among the kiddies. Everything the man says about science or scientists is rich with understanding of scientific method. Scientists owe him a great debt of gratitude. Freedom loving people do too.

  7. Matthew (11:52:13) :
    I love you Richard. Oh maybe love is too strong a term. No, actually I think I was right the first time, for your quiet determination a statue should be built in your honour.

    I think I’m somewhat bromantically inclined toward him too :P

    How he manages to keep his cool amidst the crap-storm the believer community has hurled his way, I’ll never understand

  8. Some of those climate models use neural networks – these are even cited in AR4 e.g. see Chapter 9, P 690 and search on ‘neural’ throughout AR4.

    Neural networks are supposed to somehow discern and emulate a pattern between inputs and outputs. They are a pseudo-science technology based on the assumption that anything that acts like a brain neuron must somehow have intelligence. They should never be used to predict complex systems such as climate, for which they are utterly useless.

  9. Professor Lindzen is the voice of reason. Holden is a fanatic, like so many Obummer has appointed. WUWT should try to get Lindzen to do a weekly or monthly post, he is unimpeachable, articulate, and erudite.

    Saw Coleman’s piece, this business about thermistor cables is astonishing, should be played up. NCDC claims they produce a COOLING bias, requiring them to fudge the numbers upward. Our tax dollars at work!

  10. Few politicians are going to get off lightly. If climategate broke in two-three years time, and the carbon tax was in force, then the Boston harbor might have been an ideal place to throw few of them in. Yanks should remember ‘no taxation without consultation’.

  11. Compate Lindzen’s non-sensational approach to this: the Warmers in England are ready to redirect their hysteria to another dragon–that of insufficient oxygen! Can you imagine that??

    Typical atmosphere is generally 21% oxygen. Mass of the entire atmosphere is 5.8 E 15 tons and 21% of that is 1.22 E 15 tons. Divide that by 6 billion people and the world per capita mass of oxygen is ~203,000 tons.

    That’s per man, woman, and child on the earth. That’s not enough? How are they going to spin this into a catastrophe?

    I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see, although it perhaps proves again they’re not interested in numbers or logic.

    (Now what on earth am I going to do with 203 thousand tons of oxygen?)

  12. Mathew,

    “for your quiet determination a statue should be built in your honour.”

    I second that. Perhaps it’s time to retire the statue of Lincoln to make way for the new millenium. No disrepect to Abe, of course.

  13. DirkH (11:56:20) :

    Matters not how much they change the fudge factors to predict GW Cooling.
    That is precisely where the face of it meets the pie.
    NOAA got a face full of gooey stuff when thier model forecast for the current winter was 180 out, blowing the forecast for an entire continent. The MET had 2 seasons of pie in the face.
    The credibility of agencies using these failed models is in inverse proportion to how long they fail to toss them in the proper receptacle.
    If they wish to wear a happy expression covered in sticky stuff, that is their choice.

  14. An earlier quote by Prof Lindzen:

    “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

  15. Some one of Richard Lindzen stature is much more suited to writing op-eds in the Boston Globe than just letters to the editor. My guess is they won’t publish them if he submits them.

  16. @RockyRoad

    Try breathing it. That works fine for me ;)

    But seriously , have you got a link to where you got that?

  17. Smokey – the same bemused amazement was prevalent post-Listeria, salmonella in eggs, avian flu, CJD/BSE, swine flu. The list continues to grow.

    The quiet voice of reason in the wilderness is as an oasis in the desert – hard to find, but bloody refreshing when you do.

  18. The most famous global warming prediction based on modeling was Hansen’s, in 1989. It’s been twenty years, a reasonable period of time to compare his modeling to reality.

    His projections hold up spectacularly well: http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg. He’s within a tenth of a degree C for 2009, having very slightly over-estimated the radiative forcing of the GHGs in the atmosphere (http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg) would be TWENTY YEARS LATER.

    The close match between GHG concentrations and temperature increases, predicted 20 years ago and now an observed fact, is strong empirical evidence of global warming theory.

  19. I read the comment threads on both the Emanuel and Lindzen pieces.

    [If I’m not reviewing it with biased eyes,] I see more support and praise for Lindzen, and more critical comments to Emanuel. Not what I would’ve expected to see a year or even six months ago.

  20. given the failure of the MSM to warn of bubbles BEFORE they are manufactured, it is a little heartening to see the following:

    19 Feb: UK Telegraph: Here comes the next bubble – carbon trading
    I’ve long had my suspicions about the great carbon trading bubble, and I’ve
    had them pretty much confirmed by a brilliant article which has been drawn
    to my attention by one Mark Schapiro in Harper’s magazine…
    Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve
    delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of
    delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves
    around creating carbon credits, or finding carbon reduction projects whose
    benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is
    entirely intangible..
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003851/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/

    Harpers (scroll down) CONNING THE CLIMATE
    Inside the Carbon-Trading Shell Game
    By Mark Schapiro
    Indeed, carbon exists as a commodity only
    through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats,
    who determine both the demand, by
    setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing
    criteria for offsets. It was the United
    States that sculpted the cap-and-trade system
    during the Kyoto negotiations, before pulling
    out of the accord and leaving the rest of the
    world to implement the scheme. Since then,
    most of the world’s major political, fi nancial,
    and environmental interests have aligned
    themselves with the idea, because of its potential
    to generate profi ts out of adversity and to
    avoid the diffi cult economic decisions posed
    by climate change. Now the Obama Administration
    and the Democratic Congress-along
    with most American companies, which see
    cap-and-trade as the friendliest regulation
    they could hope for-want to rejoin the world
    and multiply the market. That market is, in
    essence, an elaborate shell game, a disappearing
    act that nicely serves the immediate interests
    of the world’s governments but fails to
    meet the challenges of our looming environmental
    crisis.
    http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf

    anthony and co – those of us without scientific understanding are forever grateful to you – keep up the good work and help save us from the “bubble of all bubbles”.

  21. Makes me literally LOL to think how intolerable Dr. Lindzen’s existence must be to the inner core of the AGW alarmist camp.

  22. Even a neural networks computer climate model can be expected to be right at least half the time. Eventually, they will make a “correct” prediction by chance, and then we will be screwed.

    Isn’t this how people write news letter predicting the stock market?

    Make one predicion, send it out to 100 people. Make the opposite prediction, send it out to 100 people. You will have made the right prediction to at least 100 people.

    Next, send out another letter to the 100 people who got the “correct” letter. Send one prediction to 50 of those people. Send the opposite predicion to the other 50. At least 50 people will be amazed by your ability to pick stocks.

    Repeat this one more time. 25 people will think you are a genius because you picked the right stock three times in a row and they will sign up for your $250 news letter.

    The problem is that most people cannot remember what the weather was yesterday. One accedental correct prediction will convince the masses.

  23. I agree with the admiring comments made by other readers.

    Dr. Lindzen, you do indeed exude a quiet authority, the sort that comes with total honesty. When you live your life free of agenda, when you have nothing to hide, when you seek the truth of the matter, you can present yourself with confidence. You don’t need to shout, because what you say is valuable enough that others will listen, even though you speak in moderate tones.

    I am just humbled at your wonderful mind, and your willingness to stand up for humanity, and your courage to tell the unvarnished truth. You’re so right — How can a climate alarmist claim courage in speaking out, when our government is totally in the tank for alarmism. John Holdren is a scoundrel whose views are frightening.

    Thank you for giving of yourself. We are lucky, indeed, that you have done so.

  24. RockyRoad (12:32:08) : “(Now what on earth am I going to do with 203 thousand tons of oxygen?)”

    I don’t know about you, but I have to share mine with a cat, which already takes me down to 150K tons.

    OMG, it’s worse than I thought!

  25. Robert (13:22:28) :

    That subject has been covered in detail on this site and others. Hansen’s predictions are not good — he gave outputs for 3 scenarios. The people you are quoting are spinning again with a sleight-of-hand where the input of one scenario is matched the output of a completely different scenario.

    Check it out for yourself.

  26. Of course that’s actually 100K tons…brain shutting down…symptoms of anoxia increasing…can’t breathe…

  27. RockyRoad> (Now what on earth am I going to do with 203 thousand tons of oxygen?)

    Hmmm, put like that it seems like you should be taxed on it!

    :-)

  28. Robert (13:22:28),

    As usual, Robert is flat wrong. Getting false information from the realclimate echo chamber will do that. RC takes Hansen’s “adjusted” temperatures which – surprise! – show that he was accurate. But looking at the raw data, we see how much Hansen was off: click

    In this blink gif [takes a couple of seconds to load], we see how GISS meddles with the temperature record to pretend Hansen [who runs GISS] was right: click

    And GISS shows warming, while the [much more accurate] sattelite records show cooling: click

    James Hansen’s predictions vs reality: click1, click2

    Ever notice how the alarmist believers always talk about Hansen’s scenario C? That’s because C was the least wrong. From Lucia’s site: click.

    That’s called the “Texas Sharpshooter fallacy”: Shoot 3 holes in a barn door, then draw a circle around one hole, and claim that was your target. Hansen’s 3 predictions cover such a wide temperature range, it’s really surprising that he didn’t get at least one of them right. But every single one of them was wrong.

    Finally, a WUWT article: Hansen’s models are “Useless”: click

  29. Robert (13:22:28)

    Doesn’t look so good now, especially given the divergence between the sat and land records:

    Funny how Hansen’s temperature record matches his predictions better than the sat records, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence

  30. Dr. Lindzen once again shows that he is a true scientist and gentleman.

    He graciously explains that the models are failing.

    Dr. Lindzen does not go on to state the obvious that the greedy “TEAM” of ‘science’ fraudsters realized this and also chose to grossly manipulate the data in an attempt to fix the output.

    What greed will do to men.

    (yes, I know about Mann’s hockey stick generator program – I am sure some of the models behave in a like manner)

    We have RICO in the US – where is the attorney who really wants to make a name for him/herself?

  31. Robert writes:

    “The close match between GHG concentrations and temperature increases, predicted 20 years ago and now an observed fact, is strong empirical evidence of global warming theory.”

    Actually, it is evidence that temperature is rising. To take the additional step and say the rise is caused by GHG, you have to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period. Otherwise, the rise in temperature could just as well be caused by the same natural factors that caused the MWP. Eliminating the MWP is what got Mann into such a mess. At best, you can say that the prediction from the model is pefectly consistent with GHG as a cause.

    How is Hansen’s work on clouds? As Lindzen points out in his remarkably brief statement, the models depend on assumptions about the role of clouds in creating so called “forcings.” So, if you want to say that Hansen’s prediction is right on the money, you will have to include the prediction about the clouds too.

  32. “NickB. (12:16:04) :

    Matthew (11:52:13) :
    I love you Richard. Oh maybe love is too strong a term. No, actually I think I was right the first time, for your quiet determination a statue should be built in your honour.

    I think I’m somewhat bromantically inclined toward him too :Pd

    How he manages to keep his cool amidst the crap-storm the believer community has hurled his way, I’ll never understand”

    Dr Lindzen is German. He takes names and makes lists. Don’t worry, his day will come and his revenge will be sweet.

  33. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology critiqued an article by Kerry Emanuel, director of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    I guess Dr. Lindzen is confident that his tenure will keep him from being fired, even if he causes MIT to lose a few million dollars of government-funded research. Political Correctness usually wins in the short term, but I think the time has finally come for some Scientific Correctness to assert itself. It is instructive to read both short articles.

  34. Robert (13:22:28)

    Nice try…. Keep in mind that “Scenario C” was based on the assumption of no increased CO2 emissions post Year 2000. Which of course did not happen. What actually happened with CO2 emissions was somewhere between Scenario A and B.

    Just keep spreading disinformation… Someone will believe you eventually!

  35. D Caldwell (13:40:43) :

    “Makes me literally LOL to think how intolerable Dr. Lindzen’s existence must be to the inner core of the AGW alarmist camp.”

    Yes, can you imagine Pachauri reading that!

    A quiet message to the Love Guru of the Carbon Cult.

  36. Emanuel states “We have never before dealt with a problem that threatens not us, but our distant descendants.”

    Well, errr, uhh….how about high-level nuclear waste? We sure need to correct that situation ASAP!

  37. Re: Robert (Feb 19 13:22), Robert
    Your statement is quite simply untrue. I have taken the trouble to read Hansen’s paper, and you can too:
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha02700w
    His preferred scenario, scenario B, expects an anomaly of 1.1% for 2010. Annual anomaly in 2009 per GISS is precisely half that, even after all the shenanigans described in the surfacestations project. How can you call this accurate? He did revise it, a couple of times, to fit it better to the outcomes, but that is just like the Stoat erasing the MWP from wikipedia.

  38. RockyRoad (12:32:08) :
    (Now what on earth am I going to do with 203 thousand tons of oxygen?)

    When you have as much money to burn as these climate ‘scientists’ have, then 203 thousand tons of oxygen does not seem like all that much, does it?

  39. Re: Robert (Feb 19 13:22),

    Please note that Scenario C (as well as the other two, A & B) had models for the predicted amounts of GHGs associated with each scenario’s temperatures.

    Scenario C was the one where everyone did what Hansen wanted: plateau all GHG emissions.

    Thus to say that his predictions are in any way correct is just plain wrong.

    Just look at the actual IPCC GHG amounts vs. Scenario C – and tell me that Hansen’s models weren’t completely off:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm#hansen

    The actual GHGs appear closer to Scenario B, but the temperature predictions for Scenario B are completely off.

  40. I’m confused over the figures given by Boston News.
    I am no way a scientist and don’t really understand a lot of the jargon put out on this site.
    I do however go diving. I was led to believe that the atmosphere was 21% oxygen and 79% nitrogen as a basis for working out deco time etc. There are 1% other gasses including argon co2 ect.
    The article states that 3% of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases?? such as co2 and methane. it does’nt mention water vapour as 95% of green house gases.
    Am I going off track here or can someone direct me in the right direction
    Thanks
    Mike.

  41. Hey Robert:
    Doesn’t make any difference whether temp predictions are wrong or right.
    Where is the proof of causation? There is no way of measuring CO2-caused warming and separating it from other natural or man-made causes. You would have to disprove ALL other possibilites in order to have a case for AGW “theory”. And by the way, it’s not a real Theory because you cannot prove or disprove it.

  42. Smokey (13:03:04) :

    Way to go, Smokey.
    I suspect there is a programming flaw in the models, intentional or not, that involves a variable type. The model behavior seems to imply that they are always ending up with a positive value at a critical point, and dropping sign (negative becomes positive # or zero). Maybe E.M. Smith knows what it is.

  43. Richard (13:15:53) :
    @RockyRoad
    Try breathing it. That works fine for me ;)
    But seriously , have you got a link to where you got that?
    ———————
    Reply:

    It doesn’t come from a peer-reviewed journal article, but that probably gives it more credibility if it’s dealing with climate change:

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100219103457.aspx

    But on a parallel topic, everybody’s going berserk over the highly variable weather we’re having and I’ve read where the weather does that before another ice age sets in. Apparently the temperature gradients between the poles and the equator get steeper so there’s more evaporation at low latitudes and more snowfall at higher latitudes. That’s what drives the glaciers south in the northern hemisphere as the snows increase and the ice piles up. And it makes sense that higher gradients would cause powerful displays of weather, too.

    I’m not necessarily saying this is the beginning of an Ice Age, but it’s more probable than the oceans boiling away because of some mysterious tipping point involving CO2.

    But blame my background as a geologist for my views.

  44. David (14:16:57),

    Try these out on a month old thread. Say “Test” [so they know you’re not crazy], then see how they work:

    [I’m using the word “amp” below for the ampersand: &]

    If I use the actual “&” symbol, the HTML will mess it up here. Understand? OK, so to make “°C”, use: amp#x2103
    For °F use amp#x2109

    For different kinds of degree symbols [°], try:

    ampdeg;

    ampordm;

    Option + k

    Option + 0

    Option + shift + 8 [all 3 keys together]

    [The last 3 work on Macs, I don’t know about PCs.]

    Don’t forget to replace “amp” with &. And the semicolon [;] is part of the HTML, so put it in, just like in the examples above.

    Hey, now you can write code. hAx⊗R dude!

  45. The pitfall of Global Warming causes Global Cooling lies in the nature of cycles.
    It should read “Global Warming preceeds Global Cooling cycles and vice-versa”. The March of Climes. Much like the wave behavior of iight leads to contructive and destructive interference. There are many waves in the pond of climate.
    Buying into thier abberation of the natural world leads to paralysis of perception.

  46. Well yes, the environmental enthusiasm in the press continues to paper over the causal link between CO2 emissions and temp increase with such terms as ‘wealth of evidence,’ ‘proven fact,’ ‘unequivical.’ At best is correlation = causation as with Emanuel’s ‘is consistent with…’. And political speech writers continue to make little logical leaps such as the popular one of proof of warming to proof that CO2 emissions are causing it.
    (Mosher’s views of press coverage is apposite

    The old defence that the science is too complicated for the public to understand is also still used to paper over this gap in the science. And yet it is not complicated to explain the gap, as Andy Revkin shows in a exceptional discussion of Lacis comments on the exec summary. While Lacis would later pull back, Revkin presses the point:

    But after reviewing the chapter myself just now, I have to say that at least one passage — as far as I can tell — did not contain a single caveat and did not reflect the underlying body of evidence and analysis at the time (or even now):

    “Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread. Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans.”

    I have yet to see anyone provide definitive evidence — with no error bars — that the fingerprint of human-generated greenhouse gases (or other emissions or actions) is unequivocal. The only thing described as “unequivocal” in the report was the warming, not the cause, unless I really haven’t been paying attention for the last two decades.

    (Andy, we dont need unequivocal or definitive, lets start discussing the evidence for starters.)

    What will be interesting in the next few weeks is whether the Alarmists will still be able to roll out the scientists to hold out on this link. And perhaps not. I have to keep reminding myself of Jones’s recent admissions of: 1. previous warming periods perhaps as warm as now and we dont know what caused them; 2. there only being a negative defence of the recent warming as AGW (Put #1 with #2 we get:But if we dont know what caused those previous warmings, then how do we know emissions caused this one?); and 3. no significant warming in the record since 1995.

    Dr Mann remains an enigmaTEXT. I would love to see a conversation between Lindzen and Mann.

    BTW: I once saw an anti-AGW doco from 1997 (?) staring Lindzen on the web somewhere – does anyone know where this is?

  47. Robert (13:22:28) :

    Hysterical….. Since the predictor has now been shown to have his finger on the scale of confirmation….. and he was still wrong!

  48. David, you can get the ° symbol a couple of ways. If you have a numpad on your keyboard, you can simply press and hold down the ALT key and type 2 4 8 on the numpad (this doesn’t work with the normal numbers on top). You can do this on a laptop keyboard by enabling the numlock and pressing ALT 2 4 8. Otherwise, you can open the character map from the start menu – accessories – system tools – character map, and double click on the symbol, press the copy button, and hit paste.

  49. What a breath of fresh air.

    Professor Lindzen has restored my faith that the science can be rescued from this catastrophe.

    I need a bumper sticker that reads;- “It’s The Water; Stupid !”

    And I reiterate; that H2O is the ONLY atmospheric GHG that exists in earth’s atmosphere in ALL THREE PHASES. Learn to live with that.

  50. So Dr .Lindzen, is this an option to prove/disapprove AGW ?
    So what type of experiment could be performed to test this AGW hypothesis? If there were satellites in orbit monitoring the emission of OLR over time at the same location, then OLR could be measured in a very controlled manner. If, over time, the emission of OLR in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs decreases over time, then that would prove the AGW hypothesis (i.e., that OLR is being absorbed by CO2 and heating the planet instead of being emitted from the atmosphere). But what if, over time (say, over thirty years), the emissions of OLR wavelengths that CO2 absorb remained constant? That would disprove the hypothesis and put the AGW argument to bed.

  51. Thank you, Professor Lindzen, for having the courage to publicly challenge Kerry Emanuel’s statement that “Climate changes are proven fact.”

    Far from proven, the bandwagon of CO2-based climate change – and the federal funds diverted into that propaganda – are an embarrassment to all legitimate science programs.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences
    Former NASA PI for Apollop

  52. The degree symbol on a PC is Alt-0176 … like this: °

    Hold the Alt, type 0176 on the keypad.

    It is currently 1°C where I am. Brrr.

    By the way, troll Robert’s comment about Hansen being “spectacularly” right was an absolute gas! I even showed it around work and we were all laughing.

  53. “”” Theo Goodwin (14:02:48) :

    Robert writes:

    “The close match between GHG concentrations and temperature increases, predicted 20 years ago and now an observed fact, is strong empirical evidence of global warming theory.” “””

    Well based on the recent assertion by the head of the CRU that there hasn’t been any warming since 1995; which several other had also asserted several years ago, so that is 14 years of no warming; then we have but six years of whatever warming the predictors predicted (or is that projected) but all 20 years of the GHG concentrations; well actually only the CO2 and other trace GHGs, because the H2O primary GHG hasn’t changed much, I somehow doubt that that “now observed fact”, however strongly empirical, is any evidence whatsoever, of a cause and effect relationship.

    There’s probalby an even better correlation with the number of cell phones in worldwide use.

    I would suggest that here Robert seems to be uncharacteristically grasping at straws.

  54. The science of meteorology/climate has still not yet understood that trying to model a highly complex inter-linked system is a fools errand. The sun is the main energy provider and we still do not understand the myriad ways it interacts with our climate.

    Deterministic chaos means that none of the complex GCMs being used have any predictive power beyond a few days.

    It’s great to see Prof Richard Lindzen coolly dismiss the climate modellers muddled mutterings as the nonsense they are.

    In the words of Richard Feynman, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

  55. “Makes me literally LOL to think how intolerable Dr. Lindzen’s existence must be to the inner core of the AGW alarmist camp.”

    Dr. Hansen talks a good bit about his interactions with Dr. Lindzen in “Storms of My Grandchildren.” His predominant emotion seems to be pity.

  56. “David (14:16:24) :

    Re: Robert (Feb 19 13:22), Robert
    Your statement is quite simply untrue. I have taken the trouble to read Hansen’s paper, and you can too:
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha02700w
    His preferred scenario, scenario B, expects an anomaly of 1.1% for 2010. ”

    1.1% of what? What’s the anomaly in degrees? I have read the paper and I make it an estimated .85 C compared to observed .74C. I am reading it off the graph in the paper and comparing it to GISS numbers. How are you getting your figures?

  57. RE: The original Emanuel article.

    Here is a quote I find funny:

    “Science cannot now and probably never will be able to do better than to assign probabilities to various outcomes of the uncontrolled experiment we are now performing, and the time lag between emissions and the response of the climate to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations forces us to make decisions sooner than we would like.”

    What does RC say?

    Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

    Get it now? CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, except when we need you to act now. Ice lags temperature by 10,000 years, unless it is CO2 doing the melting. Then it is much, much sooner. Are all you oil-funded meanies understanding now?

  58. This is how RC spun Phil Jone’s intervire with the BBC:
    RealClimate 15 February 2010

    Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″.

    The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance.

    This is what Jones actually said, not what RC ascribed to him:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
    Question B –
    Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    Answer
    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

    The Daily Mail headline is correct, there is either significance or there isn’t. “Only just” is meaningless. If there were statistically significant warming, would he qualify it by saying “only just”? I somehow doubt it.

  59. Close to 18 years ago I had the chance to visit M.I.T. and got to talk to Dr. Lindzen, for a few minutes, and Peter Stone for about an hour about the Lunar declinational tidal studies I was working on. After looking through the satellite photo archives there in Building 54, and was able to further define the global circulation, into four repeating patterns of the 27.32 day lunar declinational tidal cycle.

    Peter Stone encouraged me to go ahead and work on my project, as see if it ever produced any thing worthwhile, well here its.

    With the dismal failure of the AGW climate models due to their concentration on the wrong driving forces of the weather and climate, I thought you might like to look at what a model derived from the “Natural Variability Patterns” could do at predicting the next 4 years of daily weather for the continental USA.

    It has several differences from the “Business as usual” NOAA NWS forecast models, in that it uses all raw data from any stations found, considers the periodic influences from the Moon, and is based on past patterns of global circulation, to produce a “Natural Analog Weather Forecast” that works better than “their models.”

    I put this forecast together back in 2007, posted it to web site in December of 2007, has remained there unchanged since, still has maps posted until beginning of January of 2014.

    http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx

    I post it here again to expose an idea to those who say models don’t work, they do if they consider all of the important influences driving the weather and hence the long term patterns, the climate.

    The patterns it produces do not have a solar activity level component figured into the method, so the decrease in solar activity from the reference periods, shows the decrease in temperatures, that could then be insinuated as due to the solar changes, notable as the more southern movement of the Jet streams, although the daily timing of the arrival of the fronts stays sound, and the precipitation patterns stay about the same as forecast, there is a shift to more snow than rain, as noted in the Southeast USA.

    Feel free to look at the daily maps from the past two years, or for the next 4 years. I am currently getting a lot of hits from the AGW team servers in England, it seems they are learning something.

    I thought you might like to keep up with the current forward edge of research in this area.

  60. Smokey,

    Now damn! why didn’t I think of that – but even so, it proves that those naysayers are wrong – I can hit the broadside of a barn with a shotgun …

    It seems more of the folks who stood up for what they saw in the raw data are being vindicated. It’s about time.

    Mike

  61. Humm –

    should be a sarc off after that first paragraph…still getting used to writing this way…

    MJB

  62. much more to read than these excerpts –

    18 Feb: #14) MIKE MANN Part II: INTERVIEW – Who will provide communication expertise and leadership for the science community?
    RO – Have you guys ever paid any communication experts for advice?
    MM – No, I wish we or I had the money to do that, we’re in this on our own and we don’t get any money… there’s actually no financial compensation that any of us have ever received for doing this, it’s a labor of love. It’s something that we are all very concerned about, the accuracy of the science that we are all involved in, the climate science…
    RO – And who funds your blog, http://www.realclimate.org — is it paid for by people who are going to make money off of global warming research?
    MM – Hardly. We’re just a group of climate scientists who value communicating our science to the broader public. We receive no compensation whatsoever for the effort, the only thing we’ve ever received is some web space, from a non-governmental organization who offered it to us. They said, “Hey, do you guys want some space to get your message out?” We said, “Sure.” We didn’t want to be attached to any of our individual institutions because it doesn’t reflect our day jobs. So it was perfect for us to have some web space from an independent organization to do the website. But that’s all the outside input we’ve ever had. The content is completely determined by us. All editorial decision-making is by us. We do this in our spare time and we do it for free because we care about it…
    RO – And in retrospect do you think the feeling that we’d moved past the debate was naïve?
    MM – Absolutely. I can tell you, having communicated to many of my colleagues my deep concern that there was a false complacency. I felt that there was a very dangerous complacency — that the community had decided that the discourse had moved past the idea that there was a debate about the problem. I think many in the scientific community felt that way, and many in the policy arena felt that way. But there were warning signs. Those of us who were looking saw them. There was still a very well-funded, well-organized campaign. Much money and effort had been invested by the fossil fuel industry. They weren’t just going to roll over….
    http://thebenshi.com/2010/02/18/14-mike-mann-part-ii-interview-who-will-provide-communication-expertise-and-leadership-for-the-science-community/

  63. “The close match between GHG concentrations and temperature increases, predicted 20 years ago and now an observed fact, is strong empirical evidence of global warming theory.”

    This sounds like the science of an English lit major.

  64. From: “The Future of Everything: the Science of Prediction” by David Orrell, mathematician, 2007:

    “Einstein’s theory of relativity was accepted not because a committee agreed that it was a very sensible model, but because its predictions, most of which were highly counterintuitive, could be experimentally verified. Modern GCMs [global climate models] have no such objective claim to validity, because they cannot predict the weather over any relevant time scale. Many of their parameters are invented and adjusted to approximate past climate patterns. Even if this is done using mathematical procedures, the process is no less subjective because the goals and assumptions are those of the model builders. Their projections into the future—especially when combined with the output of economic models—are therefore a kind of fiction. The problem with the models is not that they are subjective or objective—there is nothing wrong with a good story, or an informed and honestly argued opinion. It is that they (GCMs) are couched in the language of mathematics and probabilities; subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. Like the Wizard of Oz, they are a bit of a sham.”

    “The track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone’s still really interested in it. It’s sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can’t make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can’t make long-term predictions of the climate. Models will cheerfully boil away all the water in the oceans or cover the world in ice, even with pre-industrial levels of CO2 When models about the future climate are in agreement, it says more about the self-regulating group psychology of the modelling community than it does about global warming and the economy.”

  65. David, here it is ° C ;-)

    Seriously this time: hold the ALT key down, and type “0176” on the number pad.

  66. @Robert (13:22:28) :

    Too bad for you that Hansen’s “Scenario B” was assuming a freezing of C02 emissions at 1988 levels –the best he thought could be done politically. Scenario A is what should have happened according to Hansen since we didn’t –and that’s off by .25C in twenty years, or, lessee, yes, 1.25C per century. Whee!

    Or maybe you should celebrate the fact that we seem to have achieved Hansen’s “best reasonable case” scenario without having to undergo the pain of capping C02 emissions at 1988 levels.

  67. Testable prediction in 1989 — and it’s passed every test with flying colors. Ignoring empirical evidence because it supports a theory you don’t like is not “skepticism.” Deal with the facts.

  68. Richard (13:15:53) :
    @RockyRoad
    Try breathing it. That works fine for me ;)
    But seriously , have you got a link to where you got that?
    ———————
    Reply:

    It doesn’t come from a peer-reviewed journal article, but that probably gives it more credibility if it’s dealing with climate change:

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100219103457.aspx

    ———————

    Here’s another link that provides all the “facts” on the dubious problem of atmospheric oxygen depletion:

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

    More about this UK based junk science organization (from their web site):

    “The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1999 by Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders to work for social responsibility and sustainable approaches in science. A major part of our work is to promote critical public understanding of science and to engage both scientists and the public in open debate and discussion. ISIS has been providing inputs into the GM debate that would have been conspicuously lacking otherwise.”

    It sounds like they are the UK version of the “Union of Concerned Scientists” but with a slightly more radical, eco-wacked left-wing agenda.

  69. His calm, intelligent nature always seem to set my mind at ease when it comes to dealing with wishful thinking that originates from vivid imaginations driven by excessive paranoia/wealth.

  70. OT but over on RealClimate I noticed that they are no longer calling sceptics “deniers”, but now all them “dissidents”. I found the term “deniers” odious, and reflective of an argument that, having no foundation in fact, must resort to discrediting opponents by labeling them. By choosing to call sceptics “dissidents” they further reveal their arrogance. They would rule the masses for their own good, as the communists ruled with an iron boot for the good of the masses, proudly trumpeting their successes while their economy collapsed and pointed repeatedly at the failed strategies of the evil democracies which were busy raising living standards world wide. Facts and politics don’t mix.

    Now they have a new iPhone app that allows warmists to bring up quick answers and fancy reports to discredit anti-AGW arguments. The masses shall be educated, facts should not get in the way of the brain washing.

  71. Re the next Impending Doom requiring massive government intervention and control – the Great Atmospheric Oxygen Shortage.

    Given that oxygen is produced predominately by plant life, if we want more oxygen, then perhaps we need more plants. One of the ways gardeners in colder climates get good early season growth is to juice their greenhouses with carbon dioxide. We also know that during the first half of the Carboniferous, atmospheric concentrations were above 2000 ppm. So isn’t the way to survive the next Great Scare to dump as much carbon dioxide into the air as possible so as to juice plant life? Perhaps the response is to pour the coal to the problem. (tongue firmly in cheek).

    Just asking.

  72. Smokey (13:58:32)

    Where did you get the first chart you linked to showing the endpoint temp when using raw data differed by .6 degrees Celsius? I would like to use it if from a source I can trust.

  73. “Now they have a new iPhone app that allows warmists to bring up quick answers and fancy reports to discredit anti-AGW arguments.”

    I love this app. I just got it today. I recommend it to anyone interested in this issue.

  74. Obviously, NASA still agrees with the current models.

    NASA Accepting Proposals for the Global Climate Change Education Cooperative Agreement Notice Inbox

    5:09 pm (3 hours ago)
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Education, in cooperation with NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, is accepting proposals in response to the NASA Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN): “Global Climate Change Education: Research Experiences, Modeling & Data”. The Global Climate Change Education (GCCE) project is designed to improve the quality of global climate change and Earth system science education at the elementary, secondary and undergraduate levels, and through lifelong learning. Each funded proposal is expected to take advantage of NASA’s unique contributions in climate science to enhance learners’ academic experiences and/or to improve educators’ abilities to engage and stimulate their students.

    Eligibility Information: Proposals will be accepted from higher education institutions (including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other minority-serving institutions); state agencies, local agencies, or federally recognized tribal government agencies; public school districts; and nonprofit organizations. NASA centers, federal agencies, federally funded research and development centers, education-related companies, and other institutions may apply through partnership with the lead organization.

    Notices of Intent are required and due by March 18, 2010.

    Full proposals are due April 28, 2010.

    Interested parties may also connect to a pre-proposal teleconference on Mar. 2, 1-3 p.m. EST, for further information. To dial into the teleconference, call 888-673-9782. The participant pass code is GCCECAN (4223226). (See the full CAN for further details.)

    For more information regarding this opportunity, please visit the GCCE page on the NSPIRES website. Go to http://nspires.nasaprs.com, click on Solicitations, then on Open Solicitations.

  75. Robert (17:42:13),

    Congratulations on you new iPhone app. It’s just perfect for you! What a time saver!

    Now, you won’t have to scramble desperately through Wikipedia and RC to try and find cut ‘n’ paste answers to make you pretend to be knowledgeable about the subject.

    For most of the rest of us, we’ve been here a long time, and we’re already up to speed. Most of us even have degrees in the hard sciences. Why not set aside the next 4 – 6 years and get one for yourself, if you can? You seem to have ample time.

  76. Robert (17:42:13) :

    Robert follows the Electric Monk expounding on its programmers beliefs.

    Virtual Reality is inverted.
    The believers become the programmers Avatar.

    The religion is codified.
    Guttenberg would be proud.

    The groupthink is complete.

    Welcome to the Machine Robert.

  77. Robert (13:22:28)

    reductio ad absurdum

    Only: the real correlation is between personal computer increase since the said year and increasing temperatures. Internationally, the computer use jas increased in line with warming. therefore computer use and concentration cause global warming, on the basis that the correlation.

  78. Re: Robert (Feb 19 16:41),
    I reckon the the person who understands Hansens predictions best is Hansen himself. So lets read what he said in 1988 shall we Robert?

    While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

    A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly. 20/Oct/09

  79. Robert –

    You are obviously not reading the responses to your claims. As others have already stated, the only prediction Hansen made that is close to being correct is Scenario C, which assumed that GHG emissions would be held to 1988 levels. When he presented his work in Congress, he strongly emphasized that he thought Scenario A was the most likely, given the speed of industrial development at the time. In reality, greenhouse gas emissions from human sources are a little above B but well below A. Still, significantly different from C.

    We are not ignoring empirical evidence, but I think you are. Are you saying now that GHG emissions or concentrations have not increased (despite copious evidence to the contrary) in the last 20 years, indicating that we don’t need any sweeping policy changes? Or are you saying that, despite the increases in anthropogenic GHGs, the effect on the climate is the same as it would have been if emissions were frozen, in which case we still need no policy to regulate the climate because humans are apparently having no impact?

    Either way, I can’t see what point you’re trying to make with arguing with the rest of us. If you accept that Hansen’s proposal for the most draconic reduction of industrial progress turned out to be the most accurate predictor of the future climate, then it seems you agree that the human effect is negligible.

  80. c james (17:30:15),

    It was posted here in a WUWT thread a couple of months ago. I know that doesn’t help much, but I think I have similar ones if you like. Here’s one you can use: click. It shows the “adjustments” that GISS/Hansen makes – which always manage to show the temperature going in the same direction: up. [takes 10 – 15 seconds to load for some reason]

  81. Smokey (18:48:26)

    Thanks for the reply. If anyone else knows how the chart was created, I’d like to know the source.

  82. c james (19:02:19),

    OK, I found it. It was posted by Steve Keohane here: click @09:16:22.

    Steve K posts here fairly often. Next time you see him you could ask. I’ll keep an eye out, too. If you’re in a hurry, let me know.

  83. JonesII (11:55:27) :

    climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991
    Many will change sides…

    We have a saying for that here in the US: “Chicago on the Potomac”

  84. Emily Daniels (18:47:51),

    You’ve got to give Robert a little time to respond. He has to dial up the answers to your questions on his iPhone.

  85. Smokey (19:13:03)

    Thanks for digging that up. I see it is more an approximation than an actual plot of the raw data but interesting nonetheless.

  86. Robert (16:41:17) :

    “Testable prediction in 1989 — and it’s passed every test with flying colors. “

    Wow. As others have pointed out, the only semi-accurate prediction was based on the assumption that we would do things we haven’t done. You are losing touch with reality.

  87. Smokey (18:48:26) :

    [takes 10 – 15 seconds to load for some reason]

    Does it say ‘Adjusting…….’ as a little red bar fills up?

    In all seriousness, check out what RC says in my post above (Dave F (15:50:57) : ) about ice sheets taking 10,000 years to respond to temperature. According to RC, they are supposed to be melting now! Not only that, but if we begin to warm the planet, they should not respond for 10,000 years, as opposed to in ~100. Wattsupwiththat indeed!

  88. I can not be nearly as calm about Kerry Emmanuel’s propaganda piece as Prof. Lindzen. It infuriates me when someone of Emmanuel’s position misleads the public on a very important issue, assuming that they are too stupid to know the truth. It made my skin crawl when he wrote:

    “It is easy to be critical of the models that are used to make such predictions – and we are – but they represent our best efforts to objectively predict climate; everything else is mere opinion and speculation.”

    Objectively? He can’t be serious! Are there no assumptions in the models, Kerry? Even if those assumption neutralized climate change in the models, they could not be called objective. They are assumptions based on ignorance, not objectivity. The fact that all the assumptions enhance the warming in the models means the models are anything but objective! And what did we have before we had climate models? Just “mere opinion and speculation?” Did science not exist before computers? Was objectivity impossible before the 1960s? Do you take us all for fools, Mr. Emmanuel?

    He ends the piece with:

    ” We might begin by mustering the courage to confront the problem of climate change in an honest and open way.”

    The whole climategate scandal has been about some AGW scientists being dishonest and extremely closed in sharing their data and methodologies. For Emmanuel to then call for the skeptics to be open and honest is the height of hypocrisy. Even his on column is blatantly dishonest in implying that the recorded warming of the last 120 years matches the AGW/CO2 theory, when much of the warming preceded the CO2, and global cooling coincided with the first 30 years of truly enhanced CO2. For 2/3rds of the 20th Century, the temperature record did not fit the CO2 warming theory. So far, the 21st Century isn’t fitting the theory either. Claiming that the theory is meshing well with the data is a lie, plain and simple!

    There are only two possibilities here: Emmanuel is a fanatic in sheep’s clothing or he is not very intelligent.

    Of course, both could be true.

  89. We need a Devil’s advocate here as I couldn’t be bothered to go to RC. Be nice to Robert. He could be you daughter!

  90. harvey (19:52:04),

    That link is the most slanted, biased, agendized globaloney I’ve read in a long time.

    And I’ve been reading a lot.

  91. David (14:16:57) :

    Sorry degree, not percent. Can’t find degrees C on my keyboard

    Suggestion: push and hold the [left] ALT key and [on the keypad] enter 0176 to get the ° [ring or degree] symbol

  92. CodeTech (15:28:23) :

    Apologies to you – posted my suggestion to David (14:16:57) before reading yours.

  93. quote
    [], models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.
    unquote

    Has anyone seen results from the VOCALS team, a study of boundary layer clouds off South America? In my normal swivelly-eyed way I have suggested they check the cloud droplets for pollution, especially in those interesting bits where the clouds are absent which remind me of the work on bacterial manipulation of CCNs over rainforests.

    JF

  94. I admire Robert. He disrupts the choir here, preaching happily to itself about how right it is, how purely objective it is in the pursuit of truth, unlike that other, nefarious opposing choir.

    You need more Roberts here, just as more (let me pick a name) Smokeys are needed on RC, etc. Otherwise you just end up with more highly tuned choirs, bouncing very resonant echos about the chapel.

  95. Smokey (20:24:02) :

    I see. You cannot refute what they say.
    So you just wave it off. Typical.

    I want to know the truth.

    I’m as big a skeptic as you all here, but I am not as naive as many here seem to be.

  96. Smokey (19:13:03) : c james (19:02:19),
    OK, I found it. It was posted by Steve Keohane here: click @09:16:22.

    Yes I did that, wondering what reality might be closer to sans adjustments. The original was saved 1/09. These days I suspect it’s worse than I thought, and considering all the massaging of data we’re probably another .5-1° below that shown.

  97. mazibuko;
    I admire Robert. He disrupts the choir here, preaching happily to itself>

    I’ve only been following this blog for a couple of months, but I’ve not noticed all that much happy preaching. Glee when another house of cards collapses yes. But after the flurry of glee, the argument about what key to be in and the right tempo begins. Don’t jump in unless you know something about the music.

    “Robert” is more like a drunken lout stumbling through the choir, over turning furniture, and accusing the choir of speaking in tongues. It’s distracting, but of little value.

    [REPLY – Bear in mind, though, that all points of view are welcome here. One thing I am sure of is that neither “side” of this debate is 100% right in all theories and/or speculations. That leaves us room for serious and respectful scientific debate. ~ Evan]

  98. johnnythelowery (19:59:21) :

    I agree. Poor old Robert certainly looks like a troll, but my daughter sounds like one as well. She’s scared to death that we’re all going to die (note the irony), and its worse than we thought! I was such a scared person myself a few years ago, until I stopped assuming that I wouldn’t understand, and started reading for myself.

    The iphone app Robert is enjoying is based on a site that I found early in my travels. It’s entire tone put me off, but checking the claims from the site, with other sites and finding it was wrong, was fascinating and fun! Thank you Anthony, and mods for keeping these comments nice!

  99. mazibuko, do you ever wonder why there are no Smokey’s at real climate?
    ==========================================

  100. [REPLY – Bear in mind, though, that all points of view are welcome here. One thing I am sure of is that neither “side” of this debate is 100% right in all theories and/or speculations. That leaves us room for serious and respectful scientific debate. ~ Evan]

    Which, by the way, I should make clear I appreciate. I learn more from the posts that are wrong on the science from the debate that ensues (even when it was me that was wrong which turns out to be more frequent than I thought but less frequent than my wife claims).

  101. Oops, see what happens when you hit the tab key!

    Robert’s posts make me think that he is reading from a prepared script. I think he comes from a call centre testing the new iphone app.

  102. davidmhoffer (16:48:47) :

    OT but over on RealClimate I noticed that they are no longer calling sceptics “deniers”, but now all them “dissidents”.

    David, please inform Gavin and his diciples that I prefer “Refutnik”.

  103. The close match between GHG concentrations and temperature increases, predicted 20 years ago and now an observed fact, is strong empirical evidence of global warming theory.

    Well yes. If his 1989 model was complete. But we know the PDO and other ocean circulation stuff was not in there.

    So all you can say for sure is maybe he was correct. Maybe he was lucky.

    And the fact that we keep adding to the models shows that we don’t even know enough yet to make proper models. i.e. ones that can be relied on for trillion dollar a year bets.

  104. @mazibuko

    Personally I’d like to see someone come along with some really powerful points in favour of AGW, plus any other hypothesis. There is really no telling what to expect of the environment, it is all so poorly understood — that’s the message I get from reading WUWT and the comments.

    That’s really the only reason I became an AGW sceptic — if the scientist-politicians had stuck to saying “we’re really being tentative here, but CO2 might be a really big problem…” I’d be fine with them. It was the moment they claimed, “the debate is over!” that even I could see it was something they couldn’t possibly be that certain about.

    But once you say, “the debate is over”, you’ve just killed the science and now we know even less.

    Robert, here’s a question for you, how much more would the science know today if they had been free to pursue multiple independent hypothesis?

  105. Peter of Sydney,

    That looks very much like a ‘science is settled’ type claim. People have to be careful here. The science is not settled either way. AGW might well be wrong in some of the things is claims, but it does not follow that everything is wrong, or that it is a hoax or a fraud.

  106. By the way, note he says “at the moment”. The models may get it right at some point. This whole thing may be a time of development for them. We should not abandon the attempt to model. We might get it right. But even if we get it wrong we may learn much in the process.

  107. And Peter of Sydney, that looks very much like a “science is settled” type comment. People should very careful about becoming the thing they criticise. AGW might be wrong in some of what it says, but it does not follow from that that everything it says is wrong, or that it is a hoax or fraud.

  108. mazibuko (20:41:22) :
    I admire Robert. He disrupts the choir here, preaching happily to itself about how right it is, how purely objective it is in the pursuit of truth, unlike that other, nefarious opposing choir.

    We all have our own opinions and beliefs. Now if you asked what has started the cooling of the planet then you would have fractured debates about that.

    Peter of Sydney (00:04:33) :
    So, the science is in AGW is a hoax at best and a fraud at worst.

    You have no idea how much science in many areas are in the same boat. But careers and reputations are at stake. Following the same science without question has created many scholars who are brain washed to be focused on garbage.

    How would you feel following the same science area for 25-30 years and finding in the end your focus was wrong?

  109. Lindzen.

    Lindzen is in person the difference between science and activism.Lindzen is a man with honor.Thats an endangered quality these days.

  110. Flying over France in the morning with low cloud cover , one can see where the fumes of the factories coming above clouds and opening the sky around them.

    So reducing natural cloudcover and opening a bit of the sky will add heath to the earth.

  111. “Paddy (14:04:02) :
    ……..
    Dr Lindzen is German. He takes names and makes lists. Don’t worry, his day will come and his revenge will be sweet.”

    Most Brits on reading this would be reminded of an all time classic comedy scene ‘Don’t tell him Pike’. Well worth another look;

    cheers David

  112. Michael Moon.

    I’m confused, Surely when you commision a new guage or instrument , the first procedure is to calibrate it against a more accurate instrument traceable to national standard, the second is to evaluate it’s reproduceability and inherent variance with a capability test. I mean that’s what you’d do if you were producing nickel and dime fasteners for the Auto or Defence industries, let alone producing data that influences trillion dollar global spending commitments. Either the gauge reads right with an acceptable variability or you don’t use it.

  113. davidmhoffer (21:22:39) :

    I read a lot of disagreement amongst contributors here. Neverthless, the premise that c02 causes global warming is open to contention: It is this that has never been measured or verified, yet this is the principle that has seen an enormous propaganda campaign from the IPCC to NASA, the Royal Society and a broad consensus. When the properties of c02 are measured under laboratory conditions, the argument that it causes warming falls flat on its face. It is an intensively studied gas. Yet this vast machine that puts the blame on climate change on Anthropogenic c02 has popular backing because it “goes after people” (Lindzen) and a lot of finance can be made through exploiting guilt. One has to vilify something in order to make money from it. Call it guilt money if you might.

    The non scientific or sociological foundations are actually much older than the way science has been contorted to fit it. An early poem by Mandeville in the 18th century gave emphasis to this. (the fable of the Bees). It is an exposition of how vice, fraud, greed, envy could be expolited and cultivated for the sake of wealth and mercantile success, and even scientists will sell their integrity to the highest bidder

  114. Robert (13:22:28) :

    … It’s been twenty years, a reasonable period of time to compare his modeling to reality.

    His projections hold up spectacularly well: …

    Yeah, and if any decent programmer had twenty years to tweak a model; it had better be damn close, or out he would go!

  115. kim (18:14:59) :

    Robert, whatever you do, don’t use that app. It’ll rot your brain.

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

    Too late.

  116. harvey (20:41:30) :

    “I’m as big a skeptic as you all here, but I am not as naive as many here seem to be.”

    Harvey, I wonder about your self labeling as a skeptic. Maybe, maybe not. But that polemic you posted was nothing but greenie propaganda. From their conclusion:

    Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things–unless we wise up to their tricks.

    As I understand it, the changeover from CFCs to replacements made a lot of money for companies, from chemical companies to A/C manufacturers. And the link you provided claims the Montreal Protocol, passed in 1987, fixed the problem just in time to avert disaster. But in fact, 2006 saw the biggest ozone hole ever: click

    After reading your link a second time, I stand by my assessment @20:24:02.

  117. In a discussion with a world class biology researcher friend of mine about AGW, he asked me how i knew which scientists to believe (as he knew I don’t understand the science but am a skeptic and have been for many years) and now i have an answer: …………………..because I LOVE them!!!

  118. It’s a fairly new trick, Smokey; I’ve run across an increasing number of alarmists who claim to be skeptics, then push the usual alarmist claptrap. Heh, probably from their iphone apps.
    ============================

  119. Michael Moon (12:30:02) :

    If you have a link to the story on thermistor cable degradation, please reply with it. I gather through your words that’s about AMSU intruments or is it from another type of sounder? Would love to read it. Can’t seem to Google it, web or news, zero found.

  120. @ davidmhoffer Denier is fine by me. I deny the existence of a lot of things. I always like the Asimov quote:

    Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?

    No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.

    One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”

    “Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”

    — Isaac Asimov

  121. Johnnythelowery, that’s called confirmation bias and it is evident on both sides of the debate. Worryingly, many people only seem to be sceptical in relation to science that doesn’t support their opinion.

  122. NOAA uses both statistical and dynamical models to predict weather under El Nino conditions. The dynamical models (some), include global warming parameters and some do not. The statistical models are just based on what happened before under similar circumstances. None of the models are based on the confluence of a negative AO occuring under El Nino conditions. That damn AO is a tricky dick. There does not appear to be a way to predict its occurrence in the future. It has been monitored since 1951 I believe. No real pattern that indicates long term positive/negative phases. Basically, NOAA would do well to say that under a positive AO, El Nino weather patterns are kind of predictable. They should add that if the AO goes deeply negative, during winter, all bets are off.

  123. The author says “Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present”

    I just thought I would show what he actually said. Shorthand answers can so often distort the intent of the original.

    G – There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

    There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

    Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

    We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

  124. harvey (19:52:04) :

    “Somehow I see too many parallels between what is happening right now with AGW and the good ol’ ozone hole”

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ProtonOzone/
    “Atmospheric scientist Charles Jackman and a team of researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and Hampton University in Virginia recognized a rare opportunity to gather further proof that solar storms destroy ozone.”

    Do you mean that it turned out to be ‘The Sun’ that was destroying the ozone layer? Yeah…I see lots of parallels.

    1) We have an observed phenomenon
    2) We search for a man made cause of this phenomenon
    3) We find something man is doing that roughly correlates
    4) We blame it on man
    5) We holler and scream until man makes a sacrifice to atone for his sins.

    Not much has changed since the days of tossing virgins into volcanoes.

  125. john pattinson (06:39:40),

    If you are implying that the MWP was not global in extent, or that it was not warmer than today, you need to get up to speed. Both of those presumptions have been discredited.

    Here’s a staring point: click1, click2, click3

    If you need more citations, there are plenty available.

  126. Robert, you seem to be a one-song singer. Since 1989, what other weather and climate parameters were in tune with temperature changes besides CO2? And I am serious about this. I am talking about Easterlies, Westerlies, MJO’s, Kelvins, oceanic oscillations, atmospheric oscillations, precip, IR balance, etc. Does your app list those? Based on your understanding, how does CO2 affect each of these parameters? You cannot ascribe CO2 as the direct cause. It is an indirect cause that then triggers (and it must powerfully do so) something else that is a powerful weather and climate driver. And then that something else has to survive all the other natural drivers. Please explain.

  127. harvey (19:52:04) :
    “Somehow I see too many parallels between what is happening right now with AGW and the good ol’ ozone hole

    http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

    methinks you really don’t want to get at the truth, just demolish the lives and careers of the scientists you disagree with.”

    Interesting point Harvey. However, the hypothesis of man-made CFC’s being the main cause has many holes in it. The variation of the sun’s UV output seems to modulate ozone production, and cosmic rays also are implicated in ozone change. Despite the Montreal Protocol, the scientific debate is far from over.

    Even NASA, one of the bastions of government funded science thinks the same thing could have been the cause of the Maunder Minimum cold period, which happened hundreds of years before CFC’s were even invented.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122

  128. Robert, remember to work with only the actual % of CO2 that forms the human CO2 emissions, not the overall CO2 % in the atmosphere. Naturally occurring CO2 cannot be considered in your explanation.

  129. “Smokey (04:57:22) :
    […]
    Harvey, I wonder about your self labeling as a skeptic. Maybe, maybe not. But that polemic you posted was nothing but greenie propaganda. From their conclusion:
    […]

    Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, […]”

    Ooh. Evil skeptics. Publishing things without peer review. Like… hmmm…. Climbers magazines? ROTFL!

  130. Smokey (19:13:03) : c james (19:02:19),
    All I was trying to do with that graph was subtract out this:

    Since we know the readings are affected by UHI, these adjustments should have the inverse sign as a more realistic approach to reality, so I only took about half of this obvious bias off the temperature.

  131. “Mark (02:38:51) :

    By the way, note he says “at the moment”. The models may get it right at some point. This whole thing may be a time of development for them. We should not abandon the attempt to model. We might get it right. But even if we get it wrong we may learn much in the process.”

    If the modelers pay for the supercomputer time out of their own pocket, why not. If they want me to pay for that, i may just ask what it’s good for. I’ll happily fund useful research through my taxes. I’m not so happy having to fund politicized pseudoscience that is used to justify tax hikes. That’s something that you can fund if you want to. The argument that we should any ole crap because we might learn something in the process sounds pretty weak to me. Well in fact it sounds outright malevolent.

  132. “charles the moderator (04:01:38) :
    Alexej Buergin.
    Just copy this one €”

    I know how to insert any sign aviable among the fonts. My point is: The standard US-keyboard is very simple, and it is irritating that ° is missing (is used in music, too, for the dim-chord: C° = Cdim).
    There should be an improved US-keyboard for scientists, with °, SQR, ^2 etc. One can easily have 5 different symbols per key. But maybe it already exists?

  133. Actually, I kinda like Hansen’s Scenario C. Assume you had written the software with the assumption that CO2 would impact the temps. You run a few models, then as an afterthought wonder what the results would be if CO2 had NO effect on T. How could you run the software unmodified to see what would happen if there were no CO2/T relationship?

    Easy. Just show no increase in CO2 for the duration of the run. Now the results will only reflect the impact of whatever other variable were included. Which is what Scenario 3 did. Which came out closest to reality. So Scenario 3, the actual temps, and rising CO2 levels is consistent with CO2 having little or no effects on temperature.

  134. harrywr2 @ 6:42:50 My slogan for the alarmists for years has been: ‘Don’t sacrifice my virgins for your superstitions.
    ==============================

  135. Harvey,

    A short and to the point refutation of anthropogenic ozone depletion:

    Anatarctic ozone was measured for the first time in the 1950s at about 110 DU. This value is much lower than the early satellite data and similar to values measured in the recent minimums.

    Ozone has been measured at Mauna Loa since the 1960s with no discernible trend whatsoever, only seasonal variation. Exactly what logic allowed scientists to suggest that reduced ozone in Antarctica is caused by CFC emissions in the NH with no reduction in ozone in the areas between there and here? Ozone concentration is primarily dependent on temperature and incident radiation.

  136. This is interesting. Caution my explanation is unsophisticated at best, but I will try…… Essentially, the data in three peer reviewed studies indicates some evidence that outgoing long-wave IR radiation at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs (and ultimately re-emits as energy/heat) are stable or increasing over time.
    Theory says that outbound radiation at this wavelength should decrease as CO2 absorbs it. So observations diverge from theory. Looks like the data is limited in geographic and temporal coverage, so that would be a big qualifier too….. anyway read it for yourself. I would be interested to hear more qualified voices validate if there is anything here.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

  137. Smokey (04:57:22) : in response to harvey @ 20:41:30

    Smokey, your link to the Ozone hole goes to the main page – the direct link to 2006 is here:
    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/daily.php?date=2006-09-24

    And a brief summary of the story you explain is here:

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/13749/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    My belief regarding the Ozone hole is that it is a normal atmospheric process with sufficient naturally occurring halogens that the industrially produced CFCs were/are not significant. There have been a couple of WUWT posts incorporating such issues.

  138. Reading in this week’s New Scientist Magazine I came across an interesting statement which may explain why AGW advocacy is still very strong, even with all the recent evidence clearly pointing towards the sceptics’ viewpoint. In an Opinion article by Professor of Law Eric E Johnson of North Dakota, discussing possible court arguments in a trial against CERN, he states the following:

    ‘Social scientists have identified a number of phenomena that can skew attempts to reach objective assessments of risk. For instance, cognitive dissonance describes the tendency of people to seek information that is consistent with their beliefs and to avoid information that is inconsistent. “Groupthink” describes a process by which intelligent individuals, working in a group, can reach a worry-free outlook that is not justified by the facts. And the phenomenon of confirmation bias – the tendency to filter information so as to confirm working hypotheses – was cited by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board as one explanation for why space shuttle programme managers ignored sure signs for trouble’

    What a perfect explanation for the collusion and cover up by the scientific community who are all suffering from cognitive dissonance, groupthink and confirmation bias.

    It’s ironic to find this statement in New Scientist which is a poster child for the AGW crowd and also implicated as a source for Pachauri’s biggest MSM publicised mistake over Glaciergate. It would seem they can recognise the possibility in others but aren’t so hot when it comes to introspection.

  139. dkkraft
    I’ve seen that article before recently but I don’t think it is as conclusive as it sounds. The measuring instruments were not the same, adjustments for surface temperature seem to have been based on instrument data which has been shown to be…problematic…. and choosing cloudless days… define cloud?

    I suspect the correlation will turn out to be accurate, but I don’t expect the regimental charge of the AGW crowd will falter and the soldiers flee because of this.

  140. So no mention that his last study was critically flawed and thoroughly debunked? (follow the links in the article for more reputable dismissals from journals)

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/18/curry-reviews-lindzen-and-choi/

    Naturally his response was essentially “But no one ever critically assesses pro climate change studies” which roughly means “Don’t pick on me”.

    Given that he’s a lecturer with MiT I can’t understand how exactly the skeptics can claim to being undermined or stone walled. I’d argue lecturing in one of America’s most prestigious faculties shows he is taken seriously.

  141. Doug Badgero (08:54:48) :

    Harvey,

    A short and to the point refutation of anthropogenic ozone depletion:

    Anatarctic ozone was measured for the first time in the 1950s at about 110 DU. This value is much lower than the early satellite data and similar to values measured in the recent minimums.

    Ozone has been measured at Mauna Loa since the 1960s with no discernible trend whatsoever, only seasonal variation. Exactly what logic allowed scientists to suggest that reduced ozone in Antarctica is caused by CFC emissions in the NH with no reduction in ozone in the areas between there and here? Ozone concentration is primarily dependent on temperature and incident radiation.

    My reply;
    If you open a Handbook of Physics, and thumb back to the pages listing magnetic reluctance / conductance of elements and compounds…
    You will find the magnetic reluctance of O2 compared to O3 is about three orders of magnitude lower for Ozone, so in the presence of UV and other magnetic fields O2 converts to O3 by the normal conservation of energy mechanism employed a lot by nature.

    The normal Ozone when released from the magnetic fields influence just breaks down to O2 again. I would suggest that it is the shape of the Earth’s magnetic fields in Southern winter that creates, and maintains the hole in the pattern, of the Ozone that follows the shape of the magnetic gradient, along the edge of the hole, low field strength inside higher outside.

    Should be easy to test and put your mind to ease with out changing the production of anything.

  142. Sierra Sam: exactly. No causation at all.

    What Hansen (and by extension, Robert) must do first is explain the warming from 1910 to 1940, which was at least as great as that from 1975 to 2000, yet had low CO2 concentrations. Also, the cause of the Medieval Warming, and the Roman Warming. Then, they must rule out that warming mechanism (whatever they conclude it was, and that alone will be interesting), as a cause of the 1975 to 2000 warming.

    Their explanations must be consistent with the known laws of physics, which includes fundamentals of process control — and what they have thus far advanced are not consistent.

    We are still waiting.

  143. davidmhoffer (11:01:09) :

    Thanks for responding re: the American Thinker article. Yes, I thought the data might be a bit thin to support the sensational headline for sure. What was interesting was that in the peer reviewed articles, this very data was being used to confirm the validity of the climate models.

  144. “…Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor…” ~ Richard Lindzen

    Of course Dr. Lindzen’s colleague, Kerry Emanuel knows that fact quite well, and so stated it in a paper he wrote for the January/February 2007 issue of Boston Review

    Excerpts:

    “..There are by now a few dozen such models in the world, but they are not entirely independent of one another, often sharing common pieces of computer code and common ancestors.

    Although the equations representing the physical and chemical processes in the climate system are well known, they cannot be solved exactly.

    It is computationally impossible to keep track of every molecule of air and ocean, and to make the task viable, the two fluids must be divided up into manageable chunks. The smaller and more numerous these chunks, the more accurate the result, but with today’s computers the smallest we can make these chunks in the atmosphere is around 100 miles in the horizontal and a few hundred yards in the vertical, and a bit smaller in the ocean.

    The problem here is that many important processes are much smaller than these scales.

    For example, cumulus clouds in the atmosphere are critical for transferring heat and water upward and downward, but they are typically only a few miles across and so cannot be simulated by the climate models. …

    “..The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship.” ” Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank. ” – Kerry Emanuel, MIT colleague of Richard S. Lindzed http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200708/0391.html

  145. Michael Ozanne 03:55:58

    OT Unusual surname. Would you be related to the one time headmaster of a prep school in Wiltshire?

  146. I just looked at the Boston Globe’s site. They charge a fee to see?read entire articles/letters, by the way. They do, however, give you a free peek, probably so you don’t accidentally buy the wrong article. I was able to “free peek” at both the original op-ed and the letter in response. I was able to read enough to verify there is no question these are the correct pieces. However, the Globe lists the letter’s author as Tim McIntyre. ?????????????????

  147. ron pittenger (14:38:18) wrote: [quote] “I just looked at the Boston Globe’s site. They charge a fee to see?read entire articles/letters, by the way. They do, however, give you a free peek, probably so you don’t accidentally buy the wrong article. I was able to “free peek” at both the original op-ed and the letter in response. I was able to read enough to verify there is no question these are the correct pieces. However, the Globe lists the letter’s author as Tim McIntyre. ?????????????????” [end quote]

    I saved a complete copy of what he wrote for the Boston Review in my archives (for future reference). If you, or anyone else wants a copy, give me an email address and I’ll send it to you.

  148. Richard Holle,

    Thanks, I was not necessarily attempting to explain all the nuances of why the “hole” exists. I was only attempting to point out some foolishness in the anthropogenic theory. Primarily that the low levels measured during the last 30 years or so are perhaps not unique and that there is little evidence that global concentrations have changed much.

  149. WWIII
    Not Knowingly no…:-)

    General Question:
    I’m confused about the suggestion (Michael Moon : Wayne) that there would have to be retroactive adjustment to an instrument record. Either a gauge R&R exercise and the regular retesting and re-calibration protocol shows the instrument remains capable, reproducable and reliable, traceable to national standards or it does not. If yes, no adjustments required. If no, use @rand for more reliable results.

    This isn’t just to do with changing metering technology. Should you replace one instrument with the same type, make and next sequential production serial number, capability of reproducibility, reliability and variability should be proven and documented before its used “on-line”

    Confession : Was once a Quality manager for an Automotive and Defence tier 1 company, and still has a mania about instrument qualification….:-)

    Random Question : How much of HADCRUT , GISS and GHCN would be left if you were to exclude any station that did not have a continuous, systematic history of gauge calibration. re-qualification, and corrective action ? :-)

  150. and why wouldn’t Lisden say this? Look who, besides MIT, is signing his checks:

    He is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.

    [Reply: I have a feeling you’re going to receive an education. ~dbs, mod.]

  151. ………….Johnnythelowery (05:18:36) :
    In a discussion with a world class biology researcher friend of mine about AGW, he asked me how i knew which scientists to believe (as he knew I don’t understand the science but am a skeptic and have been for many years) and now i have an answer: …………………..because I LOVE them!!!

    …………………Mark (06:12:01) :
    Johnnythelowery, that’s called confirmation bias and it is evident on both sides of the debate. Worryingly, many people only seem to be sceptical in relation to science that doesn’t support their opinion……..

    MARK Darling: I jest. Very few even now know how hollowed out AGW has been found to be. Besides the sheer professionalism of your skeptical opponents here on WUWT and their clinical ability to show the bogus nature of the sloppy Science of the AGW industry, the failure of CRU to honor their moral and legal obligation to fullfil the FOI requests said it all. AND STILL DOES!

  152. Reply to johnnythelowery

    What professional right does a biologist have to talk about climate change? Its like asking a brain surgeon about rocket science. They’re both very complex fields filled with intelligent people but who have as much in common as I do with a attractive women. Case and point Svensmark forgetting to take orbital decay into account, a mistake that was at best sloppy and at worst deliberate falsification.

    Still no body discussing the science, just conspiracies as if the government isn’t also medical research and a hundred other fields.

  153. Doug Badgero (15:52:24) :

    Richard Holle,

    Thanks, I was not necessarily attempting to explain all the nuances of why the “hole” exists. I was only attempting to point out some foolishness in the anthropogenic theory. Primarily that the low levels measured during the last 30 years or so are perhaps not unique and that there is little evidence that global concentrations have changed much.

    My reply:
    To attempt a legislative solution first, with out knowing the driving mechanisms behind the production, maintenance and destruction of Ozone, was what was done, CFC’s are gone, the holes every winter remain, their production and duration still under the total control of UV radiative forces , combined with the cyclic, but currently slowly ebbing strength of the global magnetic fields.

    CO2 will be the same story with any reduction resulting in lower food production for the masses to consume, while the wealthy elite still eat what remains of endangered species.

    When the next Ice age does come, these same elite, continuing with these same type policies and methods, will have eradicated most native peoples of the tropical zones of the world, bought the land and moved in while controlling immigration of the unwashed masses, that still survive.

    The swine flu H1N1 scare sets the stage, for the further future release of lab engineered diseases, while tightly controlling the release of the “expensive” antidote for the cleansing of the tropics prior to moving in, and for back door protection from “unwanted” immigration from the more polar regions.

Comments are closed.