Open Thread Sunday

Go Pack, go!

Enjoy your ‘escape’ Anthony.
But, in the meantime, breaking “news”!!!
“For Many Species, No Escape as Temperature Rises”
“Over the past two decades, an increasing number of settlers who have moved here to farm have impinged on bird habitats and reduced bird populations by cutting down forests and turning grasslands into fields. Now the early effects of global warming and other climate changes have helped send the populations of many local mountain species into a steep downward spiral, from which many experts say they will never recover.
Over the next 100 years, many scientists predict, 20 percent to 30 percent of species could be lost if the temperature rises 3.6 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. If the most extreme warming predictions are realized, the loss could be over 50 percent, according to the United Nations climate change panel.
Polar bears have become the icons of this climate threat. But scientists say that tens of thousands of smaller species that live in the tropics or on or near mountaintops are equally, if not more, vulnerable… ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/science/earth/22kenya.html?_r=1&hpw

And re-reporting old crap makes it seem even worse.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/67647/title/Climate_action_could_save_polar_bears

Just found this site for the first time. Very interesting.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm

James Barker says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:26 am
Yes it is good & let us hope John Brignell recovers his health soon.
P

Ah…I remember my father saying, “Don’t make me get outta this chair,” when I was practicing “karate moves” on my younger brother.

Take the day off? Take the entire day entirely off??? Is this what we pay you for?

Just found this beauty via Steven Goddard’s RealScience site:
“Fish threatened by global warming to be moved north
Scores of radical measures planned to help us and our wildlife cope with climate change”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fish-threatened-by-global-warming-to-be-moved-north-2192001.html
Lots of well deserved ridicule in the comments at the so called “independent.”
My question: will a massive government program be required to move the Loch Ness monster north as well?

We know that plants reach their optimum production at carbon levels far in excess of current levels, I assume all coal, oil, gas and turf are carbon removed from the athmosphere in previous climate events, if so, is there a study that corelates the evolution of plants and the carbon levels present at the time?. Does evolution optimise production at optimum/natural carbon levels, answer anyone?.

Sounds like an excellent plan Anthony!
You certainly deserve some well earned time off, and you only get one chance to spend time with your family — never put work ahead of that on a continuing basis, the time is too precious.
I’m sure we can keep the water fights and hair pulling to a minimum while you take a breather.
Your blog is my one window on sanity and intelligent discussion in a world poisoned by sensationalism and just plain mindless babble. Thank you!!
Larry

Great idea — you should make it a weekly pattern. Your kids deserve you!

Jeff Id’s “retirement”, Steve M’s recent slow-down in post frequency, and Anthony’s hosting of guest posters makes me wonder if the next step in this neighborhood of the blogosphere — call it “public review of climate science” — might be to run an aggregated site. One site having multiple “vendors” where the shop owners post what they like, but don’t feel the voracious demand as much as when they go it alone. It would take more of an organizer than a creative content generator — sort of like journal editor — to do it, but division of labor might be good thing.
The value to readers comes with cross-pollenation between associated “sites” and discovery of new writers whose own blogs might be too small to notice. Some posters like Willis probably don’t want to run a blog but are happy creating content and getting feedback. Others might go on a streak until their topic is done and then take a break. Others might just do a periodic posting but with more depth than usual.
Climate Science (with both its successes and failures) isn’t going away and it isn’t going back into the anonymous laboratories. The vast public now knows it’s a stakeholder and wants to protect it’s interests in the Science business. Bandwidth may have reached the point where the critics should be thinking about reorganizing the structure of their part of the conversation.

I have a solution that will save the polar bears now that all the Arctic ice has melted and they have run out of food.
Relocate the polar bears to Antarctica where the ice is increasing and there are plenty of penguins for food. Send all the climate scientists there too!

Read and enjoy contemplating the possibilities. http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf

“In honor of Jeff Id closing The Air Vent, I’m going to take the day off and spend more time with my kids.”
Good for you !!!
Enjoy !!

R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“Related to the notion that anthropogenic GHG’s and their related feedback’s could affect some of the natural ocean cycles, here’s a small sample of some of the studies being done:
[…]
cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.”
No, it’s knowledge. I know how flakey and full of holes the climate models are, thus the modeling studies you linked to that “prove” via a computer game run that somehing is going to happen are just another piece of flycrap on a huge pile of flycrap. And really, i can’t be bothered to care for this edifice of lies anymore; it’s corrupt from the foundations all the way up and will necessarily and ultimately fail.
Here is a prediction:
Until the year 2100, the climate models will undergo at least 400 revisions; each time resulting in a different projection; and finally, in the year 2100, they will be able to predict the climate in 2100 perfectly.

Maybe I am being simplisitic and I appreciate any constructive comments but if the Earth heats up will there not be an increase in precipitation? I accept that the climate changes but the root of the argument is that man-made production of CO2 is increasing the temperature beyond a natural variance.
If precipitation records are used then it avoids problems about UHI’s , thermometer anomalies etc. If it rains it rains. No need for homgenisation etc.
If there is increased evaporation then there will be an increased albedo from the clouds which will reflect solar radiation so to an extent there will be a lag between increased precipitation and increasing temperatures. Can anyone refer me to such an analysis?
To summarise if the earth heats up, rainfall increases?

Just wants to share´:
Im working at the most crazy analysis I have done to date. :-O
Its taking much more time than i have. I am producing a map where the differences between GISS 1200km ground based data and UAU TLT over land is mapped against development in population.
The most difficult part here is to collect useful population change data from the satellite years. And then fast you realise that national population data around the world is not enought as many larger countries has very different trends etc within boarders.
For example, Russia, national data says decline in population which does not explain the Siveria hotspot where GISS goes hotter than UAH. But when looking at local population data from Siberian fragments it appears, that these have significantly growin population despite the national trend, yikes.
And something else appears extremely important: Urbanzation can cool, really(!) In areas where peoble has moved to nearby towns, the large rural area has gone colder whole only the larger city warmer this gives a significant net colling even despite net growing population. This effect is very large for parts of USA it seems.
An then I have to define coordinates for temperature data that best as possible mathes the areas for which I have population data.
See what night mare I have started diggin in?????
For now i have mapped USA (ten areas used) and South America (6 areas), retrieved even regional population data for the whole world, so.. in a few weeks I think im done. I hope.
K.R. Frank

Ah, he’s watching football, its the last two playoffs leading up to the superbowl.

How about a discussion about scientific fraud and bias? I have been a little surprised that some of the recent frauds have gotten less attention.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/understanding-scientific-fraud-part-1/
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/understanding-scientific-bias-part-2/
We are all guilty to some degree of bias, but the nasty fraud still happens plenty in the scientific community.

← Will global warming survive a strong La Nina?
Open Thread Sunday
Posted on January 23, 2011 by Anthony Watts
In honor of Jeff Id closing The Air Vent, I’m going to take the day off and spend more time with my kids.
Be civil and keep the topics germane. Don’t make me come back here. – Anthony
Share this: StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Email
Shadowy. Wikipedia doesn’t seem to know them. Amongst their donors are BP, Shell and GE. Oh, the IPCC is a shill for Big Oil? Somebody tell the Greens.

HR
(We’ll drive ctm, robt., evean, et al crazy, just for grins ‘n giggles.)
Who is this new moderator Al that we are all going to drive crazy? 😉

Does anyone else find “wind chill” temperature forecasts annoying?
Noticed an article headline today that said that -50F temperatures were to descend on Maine only to read the article and discover they are talking about “wind chill” .. which isn’t really a “temperature” so much as it is a “feeling”.

Ireland Government Crumbles As Green Party Pulls Out Of Ruling Coalition
“It has been a while since we had one of those “before Asia opens” kind of Sundays. Today just may be one. BBC has just reported that the Irish Green party has pulled out of the ruling coalition with Fianna Fail which is “expected to bring forward the general election from 11 March.” In other words suddenly the entire Irish “rescue”, taken for granted for over a month, will have to be reexamined, once the new ruling party, which will certainly be from the current opposition reevaluates the terms. Elections are now expected to come some time in mid-February. Look for peripheral bond spreads to go whooosh tomorrow.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ireland-government-crumbles-green-party-pulls-out-ruling-coalition

My comment came across a little garbled. I was referring to
Oslo says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“I don’t know if this is news to others than me, but I came across this website for something called The Climate Institute: http://www.climate.org which claims the ”
Shadowy. Wikipedia doesn’t seem to know them. Amongst their donors are BP, Shell and GE. Oh, the IPCC is a shill for Big Oil? Somebody tell the Greens.

R Gates says-How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.
I scanned over only three of the studies the “faith” seems to be in these studies belief in athropogenic global warming when the jury is still out on what effect if any at all. Now we don’t even want to get into adjusted temps. Show the proof that is all we ask.

DirkH says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“Related to the notion that anthropogenic GHG’s and their related feedback’s could affect some of the natural ocean cycles, here’s a small sample of some of the studies being done:
[…]
cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.”
No, it’s knowledge.
____
Whose knowledge? Like I said, the certainty that increasing GHG’s have no effect on the natural ocean cycles amounts to a religious conviction, but certainly isn’t based on science.

Michael says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Query,
Can someone her give me a the size of the volume of the Earth in comparison to the volume of the Earth’s atmospheric climate?
——–
It’s not that hard to work it out for yourself.
Google: radius of earth – any number of hits on the first page withh give you around 3960 miles.
What do you mean by “height of atmospheric climate”?
Google: atmosphere
Take your pick of the various layer heights according to your interest. A common value for “the edge of space” is about 60 miles.
Google: Volume of Sphere – 4/3 PI r^3
So Volume of Earth = 4/3 X 3.14159 X 3960 ^ 3 = 260,120,000,000 cu miles approx
Volume of sphere including stratosphere = 4/3 X 3.14159 X 4010^ 3 =
270,098,000,000 approx
Difference: 9,978,000,000
Comparison : 270,098,000,000 / 260,120,000,000 = 1.038
so the “atmospheric climate” is about 3.8% of the volume of the earth.
Of course, you could also work that out by realising that the difference between the two heights is 4010/3960 = 1.012626…. and since r ^3 is the only variable, the difference is 1.012626…. ^3 = 1.038 (approx)
Similarly for the square miles of the respective surfaces = 4 PI r^2
202,068,000 : 197,060,000 sq miles
In this case, the ration is 1.0126…^2
= 1.0254 ( the outer surface is 2.54% larger than the earth’s surface)
I will leave the similar calculations for the top of the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, exosphere et al as an exercise for the reader.

This from our former “green jobs” czar :
http://www.ted.com/talks/van_jones_the_economic_injustice_of_plastic.html

R. Gates
“Maybe I am being simplisitic and I appreciate any constructive comments but if the Earth heats up will there not be an increase in precipitation? I accept that the climate changes but the root of the argument is that man-made production of CO2 is increasing the temperature beyond a natural variance.
If precipitation records are used then it avoids problems about UHI’s , thermometer anomalies etc. If it rains it rains. No need for homgenisation etc.
If there is increased evaporation then there will be an increased albedo from the clouds which will reflect solar radiation so to an extent there will be a lag between increased precipitation and increasing temperatures. Can anyone refer me to such an analysis?
To summarise if the earth heats up, rainfall increases?
_____
3 moisture related effects have been consistently found in all GCM’s when factoring in the increases in GHG’s:
1) An acceleration of the hydrological cycle
2) Increasing atmospheric water vapor levels
3) Greater rainfall in areas prone to rainfall
All 3 effects have been observed as happening, and 2010 was the wettest year in modern records. All this drives the AGW skeptics a bit crazy…”
That’s models. Try reality.
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_r/0112/global/latest.gif

jorgekafkazar says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm
James Barker says: “Just found this site for the first time. Very interesting…”
Brilliant site! Certainly love the vocabulary page. Thanks Jorge and James.

can’t quite make up their minds!
23 Jan: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Some Himalayan glaciers advance, despite warming
Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing despite an overall retreat, according to a study on Sunday that is a step toward understanding how climate change affects vital river flows from China to India…
“Our study shows there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover,” scientists at universities in Germany and the United States wrote in the study of 286 glaciers…
Elsewhere in the Himalayas “more than 65 percent of the monsoon-influenced glaciers are retreating,” they wrote in the journal Nature Geoscience of the satellite study from 2000 to 2008. Some glaciers that were stable in length were covered by a thick layer of rocky debris.
“Overall in the Himalayas, the glaciers are retreating,” Dirk Scherler, the lead author at the University of Potsdam in Germany, told Reuters…
Worldwide, most glaciers are shrinking from the Alps to the Andes in a trend blamed by the IPCC on greenhouse gases from human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels….
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70M1RC20110123

R. Gates, have you read any of the papers which you linked to?
I made the mistake of downloading the first one on your list and scanned it. It purportedly used 15 computer models to model the behavior of ENSO and SSTs through some sort of PC analysis.
The first inkling of a problem was that the first formula in the paper (for the standard deviation) had a very obvious typo. How many peer reviewers did you say reviewed the paper carefully to ensure that the science was good – and missed the obvious typo? Must of have concentrating on the other portions of the paper.
Reading the results section indicated that most of the models didn’t seem to show anything (discussed with a lot of arm waving). This excerpt seems to sum up the paper:

Because the models vary widely in their ability to simulate present-day ENSO, their associated predictions of warming-induced changes cannot be viewed as equally reliable.

What a waste of time! I didn’t look at the next one.
Maybe you should read the material first and use your apparent expertise to cut them down to a smaller number that claim to have actually showed something.

LOL!
After, I posted, I read the comment by latitude. Talk about “religious conviction”!
Great minds, latitude …

“My question: will a massive government program be required to move the Loch Ness monster north as well?”
Great question, Al Gored. In fact, Al Gore has stepped in and generously offered to personally fund cranes, jets, a massive diesel fueled aquarium on wheels – “whatever it takes; no carbon relocation footprint is too large to save this creature from the ravages of man’s carbon emissions”.

TimC says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm
@Al Gored: in your first post, the NYT article also said:
“Mountain species face even starker limitations: As they climb upward they find themselves competing for less and less space on the conical peaks, where they run into uninhabitable rocks or a lack of their usual foods — or have nowhere farther to go.”
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong again NYT: see Anthony’s earlier thread as below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/another-ipcc-claim-contradicted-with-new-science/
———-
Right on Tim. That is why I included some text, and that in particular. The whole NYT article is more of the same, a collection of cliche ‘climate change’ fairy tales.
And I love this ‘trick.’ They explain that “an increasing number of settlers who have moved here to farm have impinged on bird habitats and reduced bird populations by cutting down forests and turning grasslands into fields,” which is the real problem, but then they tack the planetary fever on to that… which is standard practise now if you want to ensure getting research funds.
On this tangent we see the confluence of the relatively new junk science/industry called ‘Conservation Biology’ with the AGW project.
Save the pikas!

@Michael
Ireland Government Crumbles As Green Party Pulls Out Of Ruling Coalition
Seems it has happened, although they do say they will do what they can to push the finance bill through.
Last Sunday there was a report that TDs (equivalent to Congressmen) in Fianna Fail, the main coalition partner, would not vote through a climate change bill which was supposed to be voted in alongside the finance bill.
This would have brought into law more stringent regulations on CO2 than the EU directives have already set. My guess is that this is the Green Party riposte. The sight of John Gormley (Green Party leader) gloating about it during the week made me sick to my stomach.
I really don’t know whither Ireland now. We have enough in the kitty not to have to go to the bond markets until the middle of the year, but after that is anybodies guess. While there are some good politicians in Fine Gael, the main opposition party, their leader is an unreconstructed Muppet. We desperately need something akin to the Taxed Enough Already Party in America.
On the plus side, our exports are higher than our imports and increasing, and if we stick to the four year plan, we’ll come out of it OK. The government own most of the banks now, and can expect a large premium over what they paid for them once they sell them off in the years to come.
On the negative side, we have 450,000 government workers (out of a total working population of ~1.8 million, i.e. 1 in 4), only 150,000 of which could be called front line workers (police, nurses, doctors, teachers, army, etc). I don’t begrudge the front line workers a cent, but we’ll be paying for the rest of them for the rest of their lives, and I do begrudge that. I’m just glad my daughter emigrated when she did.

Good on ya, Anthony! Please thank your family for allowing us to borrow you!
So, we’ve managed to survive the hottest year ever. We’ve suffered from extremes of heat, extremes of cold, extremes of wet, and extremes of dry. Pretty much like every other year… If we hadn’t been told it was the hottest year ever, what would we have observed that would tip us off?
If we pick the proper cherries, and are willing to call 1998, 2005, 2010 roughly “a decade”, we come up with a trend of about 0.02C per decade. That’s 0.2C per century, 2C per thousand. The seas will boil in less than 43000 years at that rate. Personally, I’m terrified! (/sarc)
Best,
Frank

A quick question from a layman…
Much is made of yearly global temperature averages. How does the fact that the yearly calendar splits winter in half effect the yearly temp avg?

Al Gored says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:04 am

Enjoy your ‘escape’ Anthony.
But, in the meantime, breaking “news”!!!
“For Many Species, No Escape as Temperature Rises”

Just for the fun of it, how many species have become extinct in the last 20 years?
I keep hearing dozens are passing away every month or so.
Don’t forget, we’ve been experiencing global warming for decades. Should be something somewhere.
Where is the body count kept?
Just wondering.

Joe Lalonde says:
January 23, 2011 at 5:06 pm
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:31 pm
That water vapour thingy…
Almost all the northern hemisphere landmass is currents under cloudcover due to the warm waters in the Arctic creating a whole pile of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Really is impressive to see!
____
I’ll have to check that out. Thanks for the heads up…

Smokey says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:20 pm
As usual, Gates wants skeptics to prove a negative. Will someone please wake me when he understands the scientific method?
_____
??? I can only laugh. I can site at least 5 simple and verifiable real-world effects that GCM’s have predicted would occur and have occurred when factoring in the increases in CO2 since the 1700’s. The prediction and occurrence of these effectcs, by the way, makes AGW a Theory, not a conjecture or a hypothesis. Those effects are:
1) A decline in seasonal Arctic Sea ice, leading to an ice free summer Arctic Ocean by 2100 at the latest.
2) An increase in global water vapor
3) An increase or acceleration in the hydrological cycle leading to greater downpours
4) A cooling of the stratosphere
5) Increase in global temperatures beyond what would be expected by natural cycles
It is now up to those who doubt the AGW Theory to propose an alternative theory that explains the simultaneous occurrence of these effects, just as someone who doubted the Theory of Relativity would have to propose an alternative theory that explains all the effects this theory can both explain and predict. This scientific reality is not convenient for those skeptical of AGW, and thus, their only recourse seems to be to claim that those who believe that the Theory of AGW is likely correct, don’t understand the nature of the scientific method.

latitude says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Gates, that was funny….
Did you actually read any of the articles you linked?
The only ‘science’ there is trying see how many “can”, “might”, “could be”, “quite likely”, “may be”…………and on and on and on……they can fit into just one paper.
_____——
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:18 pm
I read all the papers, front to back that I post. My whole point of these was in response to Smokey’s certainty that there was no way that GHG’s could affect ocean cycles, and I pointed to the fact that many professional scientists obviously don’t agree with his certainty and continue to look for possible links.
========================================================
They may be looking/funding/money, but they have not found one single connection either. It’s all the usual double speak.
Our government is pouring $billions into this, and as a result everyone is trying to get their hand into the pot. From chickens causing global warming to who knows what.
Smokey is right Gates, there’s no science saying that.
You’re right when you talk about a “science of trends” because that’s all it is.
But a science of trends is not science, it’s gambling.
“if this trend continues”

It is now up to those who doubt the AGW Theory to propose an alternative theory that explains the simultaneous occurrence of these effects
=================================================
Mother Nature

Smokey says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:20 pm
As usual, Gates wants skeptics to prove a negative. Will someone please wake me when he understands the scientific method?
—
What, you’re willing to be Rumpelstiltskin?

Smokey says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:56 pm
I see I’m dueling with an unarmed person. It’s really not fair…
____
1. The current trajectory year to year Arctic Sea ice shows it will be ice free in the summer by 2100. The point is that GCM’s have predicted it and it is right on track to be there, if not sooner.
2. Specific Humidity levels are increasing at the surface.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/humidity
Though your use of relative humidity at 300-700mb is interesting, but not the effect being discussed, though they could tell us something about how much those parcels of air have warmed over that period.
You’ve apparently not got any viable rebuttal for the hydrological cycle accelerating, and I’m still waiting for your proof that CO2 absolutely cannot affect ocean cycles. You were certain that it couldn’t, and I simply made the point that it is a subject being studied, but never said it was or wasn’t. It was your certainty that it doesn’t that you seem to not be able to back up with any sort of peer-reviewed study, though I gave multiple examples of how the issue is still a matter of intense research, and thus, your certainty is quite unfounded by any science and shows the same qualities a religious faith.

Anthony, congrats on taking a day off. In a tenuous connection, I think that many people in Chico spent the day away from the computer. Aaron Rodgers, a Chico native, just led the Pack to the NFC title and a Superbowl berth.
Go Pack Go!

Pamela Gray says:
January 23, 2011 at 7:09 pm
R. Gates, the glaring error you make is the lack of sufficient energy available in the increase in anthropogenic ppm CO2, which is a small percentage of CO2 and an even smaller percentage of all greenhouse gasses including water vapor, to affect all the systems you list. Show me the maths.
_____
If you want to see the “maths” I would suggest you purchase a supercomputer and run CSIM 1.0 yourself. You can download it here:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/
Good luck!
Caution: Don’t try to simulate the climate on your home ‘puter or you’ll be sorry!

Greys bath heater
Direct hair dryer at the surface of a filled bath, set on coolest setting
Remove co2 injection system from aquarium and place so co2 goes into hairdryer flow.
Wait for bath to heat.
wait a very very long time

R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“I’m still waiting for your proof that CO2 absolutely cannot affect ocean cycles.”
Please rephrase in a non-negative unless you are going to prove that GOD or DOG *do not exist*.

R. Gates says: (January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm)
” A decline in seasonal Arctic Sea ice, leading to an ice free summer Arctic Ocean by 2100 at the latest.”
This is similar to your “40% increase in CO2” statements. When you look past the words and actually see the real world it shows something quite different. This years “decline” in arctic sea ice is almost all due to the Hudson Bay area. What Hudson Bay has to do with sea ice that is actually in the Arctic Ocean is, well, nothing; other than it is used in the total count. But that is a human decision to include it. So your declining trend line looks good for you on paper but has little to do with the real ice in the Arctic Ocean.

R. Gates, curiosity strikes me, what millibar are you at? While 300-700mb is not interesting to you, some of us has observered weather or climate happenings in these pressures regions.
At what millibar do you think CO2 releases all the energy that you are scared of into space?
Just curious…

For those who want a quick review of some of the latest research into what would happen if we completely took out this “minor trace gas” called CO2 from the atmosphere, here’s a link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014171146.htm
This ties directly to the friendly discussion Smokey and I have had related to CO2 levels, water vapor and humidity, and how this minor trace gas (because it is non-precipitating) can in fact, act as a master thermostat for the climate.
Tom in Florida: The modern measurement for Arctic Sea Ice has always included Hudson Bay, so why would you want to move the goal post?

Gates
You do come prepared, but there is one glaring fact that you may have forgotten.
Air pollution, ( and all pollution in general, for that matter) has been declining for a number of years. Energy effecient applicances, automobiles, and various other forms of industry have dramtically scaled back pollution. Yet acording to your theory the 3 hottest tempatures were 1998, 2005, and 2010.
However, if pollution levels, ( and thus, man-made CO2 emissions,) have been declining, ( and, in fact, peaked long before that,I believe) then the hottest tempatures, if the AGW theory was correct, should of occured sometime around those times, not many later. ESPECAILLY if carbon emissions are having that “catastrophic” effect on the world that the proponenents of CAGW portray.
Try asking a old relative, (preferably one who lived in the UK or even LA) about the old layers of smog that are no longer there today. They’ll have quite a story.

Smokey says: Wrote
January 23, 2011 at 3:13 pm
“Michael,
This graphic shows the relative amounts of atmosphere [on right], and total amount of water [on left], compared with the planet.”
Reduced to actual physical mass. Nice.
StuartMcL says: Wrote
January 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Michael says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Query,
Can someone her give me a the size of the volume of the Earth in comparison to the volume of the Earth’s atmospheric climate?
Werner Brozek says: Wrote
January 23, 2011 at 3:27 pm
“Michael says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Query,
The square miles of the earths surface and the square miles of the Earth’s outer atmosphere would be nice also.”
Wow, Amazing. I didn’t think I would get great responses like this and so fast.
I can usually do the math but I’m currently occupied with 5 different thought processes at the same time and thought I’d defer to the math wiz kids these questions.
The thought experiment I was having has to do with the surface nuisance influence(us), to the sheer volume above us, and putting it into perspective.
“Layers of the Earth’s Atmosphere
The atmosphere is divided into five layers. It is thickest near the surface and thins out with height until it eventually merges with space.
1) The troposphere is the first layer above the surface and contains half of the Earth’s atmosphere. Weather occurs in this layer.
2) Many jet aircrafts fly in the stratosphere because it is very stable. Also, the ozone layer absorbs harmful rays from the Sun.
3) Meteors or rock fragments burn up in the mesosphere.
4) The thermosphere is a layer with auroras. It is also where the space shuttle orbits.
5) The atmosphere merges into space in the extremely thin exosphere. This is the upper limit of our atmosphere.
The Troposphere
The troposphere is the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The troposphere starts at Earth’s surface and goes up to a height of 7 to 20 km (4 to 12 miles, or 23,000 to 65,000 feet) above sea level. Most of the mass (about 75-80%) of the atmosphere is in the troposphere. Almost all weather occurs within this layer. Air is warmest at the bottom of the troposphere near ground level. Higher up it gets colder. Air pressure and the density of the air are also less at high altitudes. The layer above the troposphere is called the stratosphere.
The Stratosphere
The stratosphere is a layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The stratosphere is the second layer, as one moves upward from Earth’s surface, of the atmosphere. The stratosphere is above the troposphere and below the mesosphere.
The top of the stratosphere occurs at 50 km (31 miles) altitude. The boundary between the stratosphere and the mesosphere above is called the stratopause. The altitude of the bottom of the stratosphere varies with latitude and with the seasons, occurring between about 8 and 16 km (5 and 10 miles, or 26,000 to 53,000 feet). The bottom of the stratosphere is around 16 km (10 miles or 53,000 feet) above Earth’s surface near the equator, around 10 km (6 miles) at mid-latitudes, and around 8 km (5 miles) near the poles. It is slightly lower in winter at mid- and high-latitudes, and slightly higher in the summer. The boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere below is called the tropopause.
The Mesosphere
The mesosphere is a layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The mesosphere is above the stratosphere layer. The layer above the mesosphere is called the thermosphere. The mesosphere starts at 50 km (31 miles) above Earth’s surface and goes up to 85 km (53 miles) high.
As you get higher up in the mesosphere, the temperature gets colder. The top of the mesosphere is the coldest part of Earth’s atmosphere. The temperature there is around -90° C (-130° F)!
The Thermosphere
The thermosphere is a layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The thermosphere is directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. It extends from about 90 km (56 miles) to between 500 and 1,000 km (311 to 621 miles) above our planet.
Temperatures climb sharply in the lower thermosphere (below 200 to 300 km altitude), then level off and hold fairly steady with increasing altitude above that height. Solar activity strongly influences temperature in the thermosphere. The thermosphere is typically about 200° C (360° F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500° C (900° F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.
The Exosphere
Very high up, the Earth’s atmosphere becomes very thin. The region where atoms and molecules escape into space is referred to as the exosphere. The exosphere is on top of the thermosphere.
Nearly all of the water vapor and dust particles in the atmosphere are in the troposphere. That is why most clouds are found in this lowest layer, too. The bottom of the troposphere, right next to the surface of Earth, is called the “boundary layer”. In places where Earth’s surface is “bumpy” (mountains, forests) winds in the boundary layer are all jumbled up. In smooth places (over water or ice) the winds are smoother. The winds above the boundary layer aren’t affected by the surface much.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers.html
“The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.” Interesting.
What do you mean by “height of atmospheric climate”? To the edge of the exosphere, where the climate of the Earth is being influenced and churned up to.
“The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.” Interesting.
Earth’s surface area:
148,940,000 km2 land (29.2 %) The part the surface nuisance occupies.
361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %)
510,072,000 km2(total)
“The Stratosphere (outer surface is 2.54% larger than the earth’s surface).
Comparison : 270,098,000,000 / 260,120,000,000 = 1.038
so the “atmospheric climate” is about 3.8% of the volume of the earth.”(to that level)
Query
So for argument sake, let’s not take the surface nuisance above the mesosphere, 53 miles high, when talking about climate change; a good thing. If you want, calculate to the edge of the Exosphere, go for it.
Subtract the volume of the earth below the earth’s crust in comparison. Volcanoes and such active in this layer. Then calculate just for the land mass. Mans active territory.
I’m trying to see the big picture here.

The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that climate change is accelerating
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 4:29 PM on 14th January 2011
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html#ixzz1BvRnuaU5
So some alarmist scientist, towing the line for AGW theory, is going to suggest that the Sun rises 2 days early because massive amounts of ice melted in Greenland?
Really?
Really really ?
Just how much ice would need to be melted for the Sun to rise 2 days earlier..
I’ve heard it all now.

Test
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/giss1934-1998us2.jpg<a href="

I would also like everyone to know that there are two sides to every story, and that those with a lot of money tend to get their side of the story out furthest and fastest. There is a law for the rich and another for the poor. Never kid yourself about that. The skeptics have a long row to hoe yet. Most people will cave under the slightest threat, as has been shown. The tactics are dreadful and underhanded. The AGW proponents can slander and malign, but heaven help anyone that does it to them.

Test
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/mesosphere_diagram_sm.jpg
[it seems to have worked]

LOL,
I like the substance that makes twine and the mechanism that makes rope but the logic is the issue.
this… WUWT “Open Thread” seems to be loose twine in your time but odd substance.
throw me a rope, is there a point in all of this?

Re Greenland sunrise, its not rocket science, its just a reverse height of eye calculation. I could do it if I could remember the maths. But any astronomer could in two mins. Off the top of my head it would seem that several miles on vertical ice would have to melt assuming the observer was fixed.
My personal choice would be enhanced refraction caused by warmer than average air layers.

I’ve not a doubt in my mind Anthony is spending quality time with his lovely loved ones, because he’s a thoughtful and caring man. I was just clowning around, because these folks are great fun and don’t blow a gasket when you do.

The row about tonight’s BBC “Horizon” program has already begun, and it hasn’t even been broadcast yet. This is from today’s Guardian, who are clearly having a lot of fun over Delingpole’s bad interview:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/24/james-delingpole-tv-interview
“Nurse told me that he simply presented Delingpole with a hypothetical question: if a dear relative was suffering from a fatal disease, would he opt for the “consensus” treatment recommended by doctors, or advice to drink more orange juice offered by a fringe maverick quack? In terms of the science of climate change, that fringe maverick is analogous, of course, to Delingpole’s own position.
“Delingpole apparently found the line of questioning too much to handle and was purportedly lost for words. He at one point, according to Nurse, asked for the film crew to stop filming.
“Delingpole told the Guardian he denied asking the crew to stop filming. “The interview went on for about three hours – there were various points where I said ‘I’ve had enough, I want a tea break.’ There was no point where I felt that the interview had to be stopped because I was in any way uncomfortable with what Nurse was saying.” Asked if he had called the BBC to say he had been “intellectually raped” afterwards, he said: “I don’t think I would have said that, because he is incapable of intellectually raping me.”
“This vision of a shrinking violet is not the man who comes across in his bellicose Telegraph blog. In that medium he seems pretty keen to dish it out without the slightest provocation. In a recent post, for example, he referred to the people who run London zoo as having “eco-fascist leanings” for daring to suggest that climate change might be connected with the extinction of corals.
“To Delingpole, Roger Harrabin is the “the BBC’s High Priest of Gaian Worship and Climate Alarmism”. And in an outburst worthy of Sarah Palin, Delingpole reaches for his metaphorical semi-automatic:
“…the Warmist faith so fervently held and promulgated by the Met Office is exactly the same faith so passionately, unswervingly followed by David Cameron, Chris Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition’s energy spokesman in the Lords Lord Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your children’s schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the University of East Anglia, your local council… Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!”
“Delingpole is clearly a very angry man, but perhaps he should develop a thicker skin.”
…and so, one might add, should the Guardian, who spend most of their time deleting comments from the public that they don’t agree with!

Delingpole Puts His Side Of It
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/
Re. The BBC’s “Horizon” Program
The BBC’s Masterpiece of Editing Deception Triumphs Again
A three-hour interview ends up with all Delingpole’s anti-AGW reasoning cut out, and a few minutes of his surprised reaction to a fairly idiotic question included in the program. This is one of the reasons I never want to be interviewed by any BBC staffer about AGW:
“Nurse came to interview me at my home last summer, ostensibly – so his producer assured me – as a disinterested seeker-after-truth on a mission to discover why the public is losing its faith in scientists. “Not scientists,” I replied. “Just ‘climate scientists.’” But as is clear from the Horizon documentary Nurse had already made up his mind. That’s why about the only section he used out of at least three hours’ worth of footage is the one where he tosses what he clearly imagines is the killer question: Suppose you were ill with cancer would you wish to be treated by “consensus” medicine or something from the quack fringe?
“As you’ll see in the programme, this took me rather by surprise. Nurse had come posing as an open-minded investigator eager to hear why Climategate had raised legitimate doubts about the reliability of the “consensus” on global warming. Instead, the man I met was a parti-pris bruiser so delighted with his own authority as a proper Nobel-prizewinning scientist that he knew what the truth was already. And to prove it, here was a brilliant analogy which would rubbish the evil climate deniers’ cause once and for all!
“But Nurse’s analogy is shabby, dishonest and patently false. The “consensus” on Climate Change; and the “consensus” on medical care bear no similarity whatsoever.
“In the field of medicine, treatments are tested in a semi-open market. Those with more favourable outcomes (the patient gets better) will quickly gain popularity over those with less favourable outcomes (the patient gets worse). Sure there are market distortions (eg the vast marketing budgets and rampant greed of the big drug companies; inefficiency and incompetence in the public healthcare sector), but generally in the field of medicine, the “consensus” on what constitutes good, bad or indeed “quack” treatment is a fair representation of the facts as they are currently known and empirically tested.
“The “consensus” on ‘Climate Change’, by contrast, is a figment of Al Gore’s – and, I’m sorry to say, Sir Paul Nurse’s – imagination. It exaggerates the number of scientists who believe in Man Made Global Warming and it grotesquely underestimates the number who have many good reasons for suspecting that there is far, far more to “Climate Change” than anthropogenic CO2.
“What’s more such “consensus” as there is is an artificial construct. It has not been subjected to the rigour of an open or even semi-open market. It is the creation, almost entirely, of politically-driven funding from US government, from various UN bodies, from the EU, from left-leaning charitable foundations on a scale unprecedented in the history of science. So far, in real terms, no less than five times the amount of the Manhattan Project has been squandered on research into AGW. For that kind of money you can buy an awful lot of scientists prepared to suspend any belief they might have that global warming is anything other than man-made. (I put this point to Nurse but he wasn’t having it. As a scientist he just “knew” that scientists didn’t behave like that.)
“But you can’t say all that in a TV friendly sound bite. And even if I’d managed, it would no doubt have ended up with the rest of the three hours’ of reasonably cogent argument I made to Nurse – on the cutting room floor.
“At the end of the programme, Nurse argues that it is vital that the quest for scientific truth should be divorced from politics. I don’t think he’ll find anyone in the ’sceptic’ community who disagrees with him on that. What’s depressing is that he seems to have reached this conclusion in defiance of almost everything he has said in the previous hour.
“In Nurse’s Weltanschauung, NASA’s temperature records must correct because, well just look at all those spiffy satellite charts this nice man from NASA is showing me and he’s a proper scientist so he should know; and Phil Jones is clearly a man more sinned against than sinning, because look here he is all broken and rueful (and he’s a proper scientist, you know, unlike all those deniers) telling me why Climategate was about how a few innocent emails were distorted by horrid deniers.
“Meanwhile, according to Nurse and his execrable documentary, climate change “deniers” are on a par with people who don’t believe that AIDs is caused by the HIV virus and people who destroy GM crops (eh??? Since when did we have any truck with those eco-loons?). Is this really the level of intellectual sophistication we might have hoped for from the new president of the world’s most distinguished scientific association?
“Or rather, of the world’s ex- most distinguished scientific association. As I’ve reported before, the Warmist bias of the Royal Society has become such a standing joke that last year 43 of its fellows wrote in to complain. Under its two previous presidents, Lord May and Lord Rees, it has tossed aside its traditions of lofty neutrality and eagerly embraced a new role as political activist for the green lobby.
“Perhaps there was a time when this made some kind of warped sense. But with no ‘global warming’ since 1998, a succession of bitter winters, scandals cropping up every day about everything from Met Office incompetence to skullduggery in the EU carbon trading business, growing doubts in the scientific community about the validity of climate models, demands in the US for law suits against dodgy client scientists, and increasing public scepticism, it is only a matter of time before the AGW industry collapses and all those people who associated themselves with it suddenly look very foolish.
“With his new documentary Nurse has sent out a signal that, bright boy though he thinks he is, he is happy to be taken for one of those fools. If he wants to join the Warmist lemmings on their final dash, that’s his look out. But what a pity for the rest of us that he’ll be taking the credibility of the Royal Society over the cliff with him.”
…Nice one that – “deniers” are now being compared to AIDS deniers. Goebbels would be proud of Nurse.

In reply to Kate, if Delingpole had been quicker thinking on his feet, he could have said something like,
” Climate science is in its infancy, less developed than medical science was in 1790.
In 1799 George Washington was treated by the best doctors medical science had to offer. The consensus was to bleed him, thus killing him more quickly than if he had no medical treatment whatsoever”

Alan McIntire says: “if Delingpole had been quicker thinking on his feet, he could have said something like,
”Climate science is in its infancy, less developed than medical science was in 1790.
In 1799 George Washington was treated by the best doctors medical science had to offer. The consensus was to bleed him, thus killing him more quickly than if he had no medical treatment whatsoever””
Yes, you are correct. Delingpole could have said a lot of things, and I am rather surprised he was wrong-footed so easily. My suspicions are that if this tiny segment had not occurred, the BBC would probably have deleted the entire 3-hour interview rather than include any cool and rational argument from a “denier”. The whole point was to make him look as stupid as possible, and this has become almost the sole focus for all the reviewers in the pro-AGW press.
This was a classic BBC stitch-up, and it just proves to me how untrustworthy the BBC is on this issue, and confirms that I made the right decision last year not to be interviewed by any BBC staffer. They will delete everything if it doesn’t conform to their orthodoxy; Roger Harribin spent several weeks last year traveling and interviewing skeptics, and he must have recorded hours and hours of them, yet not one word has been published or broadcast of any of these interviews.