"Gore Effect" on Steroids: Six straight days of record low temperatures during COP16 in Cancun Mexico – more coming

So R. Gates, you seem to be admitting, (in your sly subtle way) that man-made increases in CO2, and to be succinct, the incredibly small increase in the % parts per million of CO2 that has been put there by fossil fuel emissions, has enough energy in that tiny % increase in ppm, has caused our La Nina to come about, or at least made it measurably worse. I would assume you also believe that El Nino is caused, or at least made measurably worse by that same % increase. Gotchya. You are talking nonsense.
However, since you talk of energy change you are talking physics and this can be calculated. I would offer you the chance to provide the maths related to this theory of yours. Come on. Fill up a chalk board for us that shows mathematically your declared change in energy available and that it would be strong enough to steer changes in La Nina, or any other event you would like to insert into the equation. If you can’t remember it, then go to one of your papers you hold so dear and copy their calculation and paste it up here.

Wonder what the rate of broken records is (to be taken with a grain of salt since many stations are no longer reporting)? I can’t help wonder what the people were thinking in 1900 when a record was broken by some extreme weather event. I think they may have taken it in stride. It could be possible that oft repeated oral histories of war and migrations West gave people a sense of “extreme” that is different than ours. We don’t remember, much less notice, those wars, or the dust bowl, the 50’s cold, or the 70’s cold, and all the heat waves in-between. Why? Because most folks today sit in temperature controlled homes and work places. Media reports of extreme weather get their attention. Not so back when people just got used to living through them instead of getting their panties in a bunch and blaming something or someone for weather.

zorro says:
December 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm
[snip – off color language – Anthony]
My apologies, that was a deserved snip.
On another matter, I have been reading the South China Morning Post the past few days and the warmist bias is very evident, the letters to the editor breathlessly stupid. It is easy to see why, though as the paper has full page IPO’s for renewable energy, in particular wind farms. There’s a fair chance that investors will lose their money on such investments.

R. Gates says:
December 11, 2010 at 1:08 pm @ur momisugly Smokey:
In general, I think your skeptical rebuttals to my posts indicate a far more “religious” clinging to your skeptical viewpoint then any my 75% “warmist” stance.
=============================================
How so??? LMAO!
In classic Smokey fashion, he tirelessly gives the data with links always provided.
You produce nothing but dogma, creed, and speculation.
Who is the more religious here? Give me a ******* break!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

tallbloke says:
December 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm
1) There is as yet no evidence that co2 has raised temperature. Changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales.
=========================================================
R. Gates says:
December 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Changes in ocean currents and changes in atmospheric currents (and therefore pressure gradients) can all be related to the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.
=========================================================
And right after the bottom of the LIA (about 1700), temperatures started to slow rise, dragging CO2 levels with it, and the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the temperature increase since the 1700’s…………….

savethesharks says:
December 11, 2010 at 7:23 pm
As usual, he slips away like an eel through a fish net….
Can’t stand the heat, R?
______
Believe it or not, I do have a bit of a life outside of WUWT, as great as I think this site is. A nice 2 hour workout at the gym followed by dinner with some friends took me away, but now I’m back and (while waiting for my laundry to finish) thought I’d see what interesting tidbits were here…
____
Pamela Gray says:
December 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
So R. Gates, you seem to be admitting, (in your sly subtle way) that man-made increases in CO2, and to be succinct, the incredibly small increase in the % parts per million of CO2 that has been put there by fossil fuel emissions, has enough energy in that tiny % increase in ppm, has caused our La Nina to come about, or at least made it measurably worse. I would assume you also believe that El Nino is caused, or at least made measurably worse by that same % increase. Gotchya. You are talking nonsense.
However, since you talk of energy change you are talking physics and this can be calculated. I would offer you the chance to provide the maths related to this theory of yours. Come on. Fill up a chalk board for us that shows mathematically your declared change in energy available and that it would be strong enough to steer changes in La Nina, or any other event you would like to insert into the equation. If you can’t remember it, then go to one of your papers you hold so dear and copy their calculation and paste it up here
______
First Pamela, except for the famous E=mc2 formula, there is no “energy” per se in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s in the sense that the CO2 is adding energy to the troposphere. The energy is the additional LW radiation that is being kept in the atmosophere and ocean systems. Of course, much of this heat “seems” to be unaccounted for, ala Trenberth’s “travesty” of not being able to account for the missing heat. Is some of it in the deeper ocean? This seems to be a strong potential for some of the missing heat, though it would be nice to get a real measurement of the amount of energy expended through the acceleration of the hydrological cycle– for we know that to accelerate anything takes an input of energy. We also know that historically (over millions of years) the acceleration of the hydrological cycle is the way the earth has responded to increases in CO2, so it might be good to really get an idea how much energy it takes to move all this extra water around from ocean to land. It always fascinates me that AGW skeptics seem unware of the huge amount of energy it takes to create large rain and snowstorms and that the cooler parts of the planet (i.e. Antarctica) are not the wettest but the most dry, as not much moisture actually falls on that frigid area, but most of the snow there is actually just blown around during ground blizzards. The big snow and rainstorms, as any Weather 101 student knows, required huge amounts of energy to produce, and if there is more energy trapped in the system through increased CO2, then there is more energy available (from a global perspective) to fuel these storms, hence one would expect to see more severe hydrological events as CO2 increases. This has been the pattern for millions of years, and no reason to think this time will be different.
In regards to the ENSO cycle– no, the increases in CO2 that man has brought about through the use of fossil fuels did not cause this cycle, as no doubt the ENSO cycle has gone on for far longer than humans have been burning fossil fuels. It is possible (and I would think even likely) however that the additional heat trapped in the earth’s atmosphere and ocean systems very likely will change the nature of the ENSO cycle (and the PDO, AMO, NAO etc.). These all are cycles related to the balancing of large amounts of energy, and if CO2 is trapping more energy, then one would expect these natural cycles to change in character. This whole topic is of course the subject of much interest and a great deal of ongoing research.
As mentioned numerous times, I am hardly qualified to display the “maths” necessary to “prove” any of what I say, and much of this is the very leading edge of climate research, but simple google searches will lead to all the studies currently being conducted on potential relationship between CO2 and alterations in the natural energy balancing cycles such as ENSO.
____
JER0ME says:
December 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm
@RGates
It is interesting that a (slowly) reducing Arctic and a (slowly) increasing Antarctic are both proofs of AGW. If these were reversed, would the ‘proof’ remain?
Has there been any statistically significant increase in extreme weather events? Every claim that there is seems to have been shown as exaggerated or just plain false AFAIK.
Even after all of the above, say it is warming, and this warming is causing all of these aforementioned issues. Is this bad? Is warming overall a bad thing? It has always been seen as a good thing historically, hence the moniker ‘optimum’. It has certainly always been a boost to food production, and thus civilisation, and thus overall wealth.
Even after all of the above, say it is warming, and it really IS bad. Is there any actual evidence that CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with this warming? Is it possible that this is just a natural variation, almost identical to similar warming periods, both in scale and duration, in the last couple of centuries that have been measured where there was no additional CO2 to be blamed? Could it just be natural, with an overall warming of 0.5C per century as a natural rebound from the LIA?
There are so very many questions that aren’t answered adequately, but are treated with the AGW knee-jerk reaction and response that we are all going to die and must be forced to contribute $billions or even $trillions to the third world at the same time as massively crippling our own economies by abandoning fossil fuels (and thus the ability to generate these $trillions).
____
I actually am not in favor of the massive international government financial interventions nor especially geoengineering efforts that I suspect will be the next big push. I think small is much better, and efforts made by individuals to reduce their energy use should be strongly encouraged on all fronts. Big government programs means big waste and unecessary taxation. The encouragment of third world countries to develop small, decentralized green energy sources is most practical. These small, decentralized home energy solutions could be a great win-win for the industrialized world as we have the infrastructure and technological know-how to bring these cutting edge small decentralized energy systems to the third world and this could be a huge commercial benefit to nimble small companies ready to assist in this effort. This, to me, seems a much more direct and efficient way to reduce carbon footprints on a longer term basis than any carbon-trading plan enforced by what would amount to be a “world police”.

“.The encouragment of third world countries to develop small, decentralized green energy sources is most practical.”
Horse pucky. The encouragement of 3rd world countries to maximize their fossil fuel-fueled industrialization would be most practical, and would be of immense benefit to the planet.
Fortunately, that’s now easy and cheap and probable:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1108/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-energy-crisis-over.html

@RGates
Well, I do agree on some points. I think every person in the developed world who believes in AGW should buy 100% renewable energy now, and invest their pensions and investments in renewable energy schemes. Put their money where their mouth is, not ours. If they did, renewable energy would become a non-problem with no UN or government intervention at all required.
Frankly, anyone claiming to believe in it, and supporting UN and government intervention, and not doing this if they are able to, is a complete hypocrite. Why try to force us to when they don’t?
I must point out, however, that you have sidestepped the main point entirely. What empirical (not modelling, projected or fancied) evidence would disprove CAGW?

JER0ME says:
December 12, 2010 at 1:40 am
@RGates
I must point out, however, that you have sidestepped the main point entirely. What empirical (not modelling, projected or fancied) evidence would disprove CAGW?
_____
In my previous post I gave you 4 concrete measurable (i.e. empirical) effects that have long been predicted by GCM’s when looking at the effects of CO2 and AGW. If any one of them failed to happen at least within the time-frame predicted by GCM’s it would at the very least cast a serious doubt on a substantial portion of the AGW hypothesis. You keep adding C to the front of AGW, and I think it is important to know than many (myself included) do not ascribe to a full catastrophic view of AGW. For example, I think it is far more likely and some warming most certainly occurs when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, thus, no matter how small, there is certainly some AGW going on and even many skeptics would concede this basic point. It is really matter of degree, literally and figuratively of course. Catastrophic AGW might very well involve unpredictable chaotic effects, and thus there is no way to dispprove it because we don’t have any theory (nor is any possible) for what the exact conditions are that produce those chaotic effects.

@ur momisugly R. Gates
The “idiot” portion in particular would imply that I’ve not done the work required to know what the hell I’m talking about.
Let me start by apologising for the offence caused – maybe I misjudged you. Actually the “useful idiot” term, taken as a whole, in this case was simply intended to imply that – intentionally or not (and I believe not) you (like many others) are contributing to a creation of mass irrational fear of global warming/climate change/climate disruption. Fear is the favourite weapon of the political elite.
When people are fearful of their futures (even of their lives, as some of the more naive Chicken Littles seem to be) they will make all kinds of sacrifices to the benefit of the political elite. The UN is on record as calling for a central world authority with powers to dictate to once-sovereign nations how to live, and how much of their earnings/GDP should be handed over to the central authority to redistribute as it sees fit, for so-called retribution for our fossil fuel-burning sins.
As I said earlier (and to which you responded by saying I was in an “echo chamber”) – 0.6C in 150 years is not unusual, today’s temps are not unprecedented, extreme weather events are not on the increase… well, I won’t “echo” the rest again, but you surely take my point? Fear is being built on worst-case scenario projections, not on observable reality. These projections themselves are based on flawed reasoning and highly selective, adjusted (dare I say “fudged?”) data. You yourself have in other posts – quite rightly – referred to the AGW hypothesis as just that: a hypothesis. I find it highly suspicious that our political elite want us to make such massive sacrifices on the back of an unproven (which by definition they all are) hypothesis.
One thing we have in common is that neither of us are politically affiliated. This probably helps us both from the outside to more easily see others being politically manipulated. A classic case in point is the so-called “war on terror” which galvanised conservative (in the main) support. The “war on climate” (this time targeted to liberals) is something I find infinitely more ridiculous than the transparently manufactured “war on terror” but because the stakes are presented as being so high millions are quite content to sacrifice evermore freedom (and money – which comes down to the same thing) in the “good fight.”
I think it is nothing less than an obligation for one to be sceptical of anything Governments use to instil fear in the masses. CAGW is no exception.
On another note – you say you have been “studying” the issue of global warming. Do you mean you have done your own original scientific studies, or do you mean that (like me, and other laypeople) you have been “studying the studies” as it were? What is your background? Apologies if this has been mentioned and I have missed it. And no offence will be taken if you prefer to decline to answer.

“There is no way to prove or disprove the Anthropogenic aspect of any warming or lack thereof.”
Start by subtracting the 0.6°C/century warming trend from all charts and graphs.
That lets a LOT of hot air out of the balloon.

Bob W.;
From your KB to God’s Ears!
Here’s a tool I suggest you use: show this graph and ask naively what it means.