Open Thread Sunday

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

Advertisements

165 thoughts on “Open Thread Sunday

  1. Yes Boss, We wont set anything going— Honest! you know us!
    Have a lovely day and enjoy the love of your family
    cheers
    Adrian

  2. 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

  3. AdrianS says:
    January 23, 2011 at 11:03 am
    “Yes Boss, We wont set anything going— Honest! you know us!”
    Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
    Best laugh I’ve had in ages!
    But I agree with you, AdrianS.
    Anthony: take a day off to enjoy time with your family and even if we do get rowdy, it’ll be contained to this thread and will be no reflection on you or the WUWT site.
    (We’ll drive ctm, robt., evean, et al crazy, just for grins ‘n giggles.)

  4. James Barker says:
    January 23, 2011 at 11:18 am
    “And AGW is causing the expansion of coral habitat?”
    Interesting link, but those corals might be in for a surprise over the next twenty years, eh?

  5. The other day somebody wrote, “Anthony, do you ever sleep?” How much time does he spend moderating all this? I donated the other day. I really spend too much time reading WUWT. I can’t imagine the hours it takes to make it all go. Thank you so much Mr. Watts.

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

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

  8. I was looking at the newest addition to the WUWT Reference Pages (solar is a great addition) and was intrigued by the Latest UAH global temperature anomaly graph.
    I realize one shouldn’t put to much stock in global averages and global anomaly charts but I keep trying to resolve NOAA’s calm that 2010 was tied with the warmest year on record.
    If you look at the UAH graph in context to a 12 month “year”, it seems reasonable to say 1999 contains a short lived spike in temperature even though 1999 temperature was actually a net negative change.
    The trend in 2009 was more significant in terms of net change than 2010 and 2010 doesn’t come close to the spike in early 1999.
    If NOAA is simply saying 2010 contained a single record equal to the highest recorded temperature, whats the big deal?
    Is it any wonder the general public is so confused by the meme — or am I missing something obvious?

  9. And again Anthony, you have shown why this site is so popular. A post on Cold Fusion? But of course! not only does this make the site more interesting, but what really grabs me about that post, is all the new names that are popping up, AND the expertise that these people have. Anthony, the CF post just goes to show how many VERY smart people actually read your blog.
    You should be PROUD!

  10. 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?

  11. John from CA says:
    January 23, 2011 at 11:55 am
    trying to resolve NOAA’s calm s/n trying to resolve NOAA’s claim
    ======
    I guess I’m not seeing how overall annual temperature oscillation relates to hottest or warmest on record.

  12. 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?.

  13. 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

  14. 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:
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3834.1
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4001.1
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C4113%3ATCCRTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008JCLI2324.1
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281997%29010%3C0138%3ASEIAGC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI224.1
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3683.1
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3853.1
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3434.1?prevSearch=%5Ball%3A+changes+in+ENSO+CO2%5D&searchHistoryKey=
    But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.

  15. 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.

  16. @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/

  17. 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!

  18. The world has gone nuts: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLQy3ze-D7N4ZQzyDjvLA8ChIEhQ?docId=CNG.0974f2ca1c91adea909b6017dc4d554e.471
    “PARIS — From being a marginal and even mocked issue, climate-change litigation is fast emerging as a new frontier of law where some believe hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.
    Compensation for losses inflicted by man-made global warming would be jaw-dropping, a payout that would make tobacco and asbestos damages look like pocket money.
    Imagine: a country or an individual could get redress for a drought that destroyed farmland, for floods and storms that created an army of refugees, for rising seas that wiped a small island state off the map.”

  19. I’ll bet it’s the football games! (An activity many American Dads share with their children.) Have fun, Anthony!

  20. “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 !!

  21. “Don’t make me come back here.”
    He’s gone – quick, get out the chemistry set!
    This morning, a friend sent me the infuriating announcement by the US EPA expanding the E15 mandate or suggestion (can’t tell which) to cars made 10 years ago. So the engines of hundreds of thousands more cars would be exposed to the corrosive effects of ethanol (including my own perfectly good car!) to absolutely no purpose.
    Questions:
    1.) Is this part of a secret plot by the EPA to eliminate automobile generated carbon by destroying the automobiles themselves?
    2.) Slightly more seriously, didn’t the EPA get the memo from AL GORE HIMSELF saying that ethanol is no good and that the mandate for its use only serves to get votes for politicians from certain agricultural states?
    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/01/epa-expands-e15-ethanol-to-2001-model-year-vehicles/

  22. Can anyone provide an update on the Surface-Station Project? I would really like to buy at least one copy of the report if it is published. –Thanx

  23. WUWT is an essential website to visit. It has made massive contributions to popularising science. WUWT should never be allowed to wither, decay and disappear.
    Quite frankly, I find it difficult to understand how Anthony Watts manages to stay on the ball day in day out, for weeks, months and years. A burn out is surely brewing up.
    Anthony ought to take at least a day or maybe two days off each week, lest he too suffer a burn-out. We don’t want to lose the guy in the driving seat of WUWT.
    Best wishes to Anthony and his family.

  24. 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.

  25. I have a “hypothesis” that all the temperature records/reconstructions that show Global Warming, take no account of the decrease in air pollution.
    I contend that the severe air pollution of major cities in Europe and USA during the early part of the 20th Century caused many more “winter fog days” compared to later part of 20th Century than present. My observation is that a “winter fog day” will depress the air temperature record for a particular locality.
    I can find no mention of anyone considering this effect, or how the pollution might have polluted the temperature record, and despite the efforts of NASA/GISS to compare historical to present via their UHI calcs, this effect is not quantified or even considered.

  26. 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?

  27. 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

  28. 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 following “merits” in its strategic plan:
    – Playing a key role in the work of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from its inception, including editing and co-authoring large portions of the First Assessment Report (1990) and 1992 Update.
    – Helping prepare the groundwork for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was agreed to by nations of the world in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992; including the convening in February 1990 in Washington of an International Workshop on a Framework Convention and Associated Protocols: A Nongovernmental Perspective that produced a draft Framework Convention.
    So an NGO co-authored and edited large parts of the first two IPCC reports.
    Not the most promising start for an “objective” scientific assessment….

  29. Mr Watts, I doubt that you can possibly have any idea just how much you have allowed this particular old man to become involved in the most salient points of this world.
    Having said that, now bugger off and look after you and yours, every week.
    PS. Now is not the time to let up! Gulp1

  30. ← 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.

  31. 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?

  32. 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? 😉

  33. Query,
    The square miles of the earths surface and the square miles of the Earth’s outer atmosphere would be nice also.

  34. 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”.

  35. There are, thankfully many knowledgeable people who frequent AW’s site, and I thank him once again for maintaining what must be the no.1 world wide web-log on matters scientific.
    From cold fusion to solar flares, and quantum mechanics to volcanoes, we have the vast array of most science in one hit. Trouble is, there is too much info for the likes of me, a simple engineer, and so I have to applaud Anthony Watts, his very able assistants and, of course, his guests.
    In the six or seven months that I have followed WUWT, I have never learnt so much in such a short space of time since I was attending (most of the time) school.
    My wife tells me that I was loudly committing our so-called sceptics of climate-warming, as it was (to me) less than a year ago to almost torture, but now I am more than willing to apply that torture to those that manipulate this science, in all its various facets to those that make money from it, and especially those that decry science, in the true meaning of the word.
    Thank you Anthony, and all your friends.

  36. 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

  37. Off-Topic to some extent, but seeing how econimies are fairing in relation to their commitment to all things Green:
    Interesting to see The 2010 Legatum Prosperity Index Table Rankings
    http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx
    UK at 13th, but Spain at 23rd and France at 19th trail significantly behind Canada (7), Autralia(4) and New Zealand(5)
    Not unexpectedly, Scandinavia sweeps the board

  38. 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.

  39. BBC compares denial of HIV virus in causation of AIDS to climate sceptics tomorrow, and the clips presented suggest Sir Paul Nurse(Royal Society) wants scientists to win peoples hearts and minds using the media rather than have them understand the science. Lest others fill the gap with politics and ideology of course, AKA the Royal Society et al.
    Will watch with an open mind but an interesting spin on how science should be understood by the public (or not).
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql

  40. 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.

  41. Gary says:
    January 23, 2011 at 12:37 pm
    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.

    This was the first suggestion in my lengthy post, “Notes from Skull Island”:

    If our side were well funded and well organized, it would have the following characteristics:
    1. There’d be a slick umbrella site like HufPo under which all dissident bloggers could shelter, cutting their costs, increasing ad revenue, and simplifying and standardizing the process of surfing the deviationist blogosphere, especially for visiting journalists. The effect would be to considerably “amplify” the dissenters’ voices.

  42. London247 says:
    January 23, 2011 at 1:23 pm
    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…

  43. 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.

  44. Michael says: “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?”
    Yes. Try this link: http://www.ixquick.com/
    Just put “Earth diameter” into the box and hit SEARCH, then see what you get.
    Repeat with “atmospheric layers.”

  45. London247 says:
    “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 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?”
    Disregard R. Gates. A warming planet will result in increased evaporation, and thus increased relative humidity – which will result in increased precipitation, all things being equal, no?
    But this contradicts the claim of a warming global climate.
    So who are you gonna believe? R Gates and his computer modelers? Or planet earth, and your lyin’ eyes?☺

  46. 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.

  47. “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.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
    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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
    Earth’s area:
    510,072,000 km2[9][10][note 5]
    148,940,000 km2 land (29.2 %)
    361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %)

  48. 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

  49. Mark Cooper says:
    January 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    “Once again a prominent AGW proponent is claiming he is the target of death threats. (The Moonbat)”
    Reminds me of a primetime tv movie from the late Fifties/early Sixties starring Don Knotts and Phil Silvers as the “slowest guns in the West.” When one of them showed up, all the gunslingers left town for fear of being challenged by the slowest gun in the West.

  50. 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.

  51. Hmmmmm, agreed that Anthony deserves a day off. I wonder about the “with the family” part, unless they are all NFL fans. Of course, this could be a coincidence or, perhaps, an anomaly. Guess that it is OK as long as a plot of Watts’ family interest in NFL playoffs doesn’t resemble a hockey stick.

  52. 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

  53. R. Gates says:
    January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
    But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.
    =======================================================
    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.

  54. 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.

  55. crosspatch says:
    January 23, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    Does anyone else find “wind chill” temperature forecasts annoying?”
    Yes, me too. I hate the wind chill maps. Apparently the real temperature is not dramatic enough. On my local news you don’t even really get the temperature map anymore, just wind chill maps.

  56. “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”.

  57. Having read Jonah Lehrer’s thought inspiring article “The Decline Effect” linked on this blog, I spent a day tracking discussions the article had generated. A few things struck me. The ease with which scientists dismissed his concerns about the scientific method as pseudo-science without actually countering his arguments. The generally hostile reception he recieved. Their attempts to villify the whole long article on basis of one controversial term “believe” at the end of the article. (Which read in context, wasn’t that controversial or “post-modernist” at all.) I think these replies, whether they realised it themselves, only helped to strenghten Lehrer’s verdict.
    An underlying current, one shared by Lehrer himself, seemed to be the worry that publicly voicing such concerns – similar to those in medical science wanting to hush Ioannidis’s research while quietly agreeing with much of it – would give fuel and ammo to the climate change deniers. So pervasive was this worry that it really makes you think. How has (C)AGW so strongly captured the imagination of the general scientists, that it even affects the way they now see the role of epistemology and the philosophy of science in public discourse!
    On basis of this, I think I accumulated a stronger feeling how big AGW really is. It is probably the largest ever scientific edifice to have caught public and political attention. It has somewhat altered the culture of science, it has been woven to the fabric of the mainstream culture and consciousness from education to collective images in everyday journalism.
    The shockwaves the eventual collapse of AGW will cause will penetrate the societal fabric on so many levels. The resulting mistrust will create an opportunity for a broader discussion of the biases that have become an accepted part of the western society on many different levels. What causes them, are they part of human nature, what are their political or ideological roots etc. And it must eventual force an overhaul of the now vastly broken scientific method as described by Lehrer and Ioannidis.
    The struggle against (C)AGW will eventually be also a philosophical and political struggle. This is a very important fight the skeptics are fighting, I’m more and more convinced of it.

  58. 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!

  59. RomanM says:
    January 23, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    LOL!
    After, I posted, I read the comment by latitude. Talk about “religious conviction”!
    Great minds, latitude …
    ============================================
    Were we separated at birth? LOL
    Always check any links that Gates posts…………………..

  60. @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.

  61. A while ago I accidentally came across a site about weather stations all around the world being surveyed. Some of them did seem to be in rather odd places.
    I can honestly appreciate Mr Watts need for rest, as I have only been a reader of this site and I am worn out.
    My good lady says I’m mad for reading it and you guys are mad for writing it.
    You are just measuring your appendages on a crib board. I must admit there doesn’t seem to be many of the female gender ranting on these sites or spouting ad homs or death threats.
    Is this just all intellectual sports teams?
    What I really want is an explanation. What is this all based on?
    In layman’s terms what information is input to create the climate models that predict the problem?
    Instead of discussing if an angel is dancing on the head of a needle how about having a “Show me (the world) the Money” debate.
    I firmly believe that the whole subject is based on politics and control. For a start I work in an engineering environment and have never met a single person who believes in the man made part of the debate (?).
    If you think that we can affect this planet just stand on the edge of the Grand Canyon, lay on the ground looking at the night sky or surface through a polynia and stand at the North Pole and ask yourself “How big do you feel?”

  62. 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

  63. 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!

  64. 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?

  65. R. Gates says: January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
    “But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction”
    Yesterday you wrote on the MET thread that: “I do have faith that the models are giving me general information about trends, though not about the exact timing and particulars.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/what-sort-of-forecast-does-the-met-office-supercomputer-make/#comment-580442
    Yesterday you were faithful, today, not so much?

  66. 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.

  67. Jack Simmons says:
    January 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm
    Just for the fun of it, how many species have become extinct in the last 20 years?
    =======================================================
    Hundreds, but they were mostly nematodes….
    …and there’s over a million species of nematodes so we’ve still got a ways to go 😉
    Jack, just so you know, about 97% of all species do not have backbones.

  68. H.R. says:
    January 23, 2011 at 11:26 am
    James Barker says:
    January 23, 2011 at 11:18 am
    “And AGW is causing the expansion of coral habitat?”
    Interesting link, but those corals might be in for a surprise over the next twenty years, eh?”

    Be aware that this post is not by the one, the only, and the original H.R. There is H.R. and HR, but I’m not sure who H.R. is. (The other H.R. must be getting paid by ‘Big Oil,’ eh?)
    @Peter Plail
    “et al“… Very funny, lol! I think you brightened the mods’ day. (And you adroitly deflected attention from my fat-fingered typo; ‘evean.’ :o)

  69. Just The Facts says:
    January 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm
    R. Gates says: January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
    “But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction”
    Yesterday you wrote on the MET thread that: “I do have faith that the models are giving me general information about trends, though not about the exact timing and particulars.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/what-sort-of-forecast-does-the-met-office-supercomputer-make/#comment-580442
    Yesterday you were faithful, today, not so much?
    ______
    It’s all about trends, not about exact timing and certainly not about tipping points. I think in general the ensemble of the GCM’s gives us a pretty good idea of what to expect, and as such, I have confidence in the basic science behind the trends shown in them. But I have no confidence “or faith” that they can predict tipping points, as it is impossible to do so for dynamical systems such as climate at the edge of chaos. Everytime a tipping point is crossed, the GCM’s will have to take that into account for there next scenario. This failure on the part of GCM’s to properly account for the chaotic nature of climate is a weakness, and will never be fully overcome, but it doesn’t render them useless at all, for they can still show trends, and in this way, I have “faith” in them, for there is still an underlying deterministic basis to climate, as it is not a random walk, though many people confuse chaos theory with the random walk, which it most definitely is not.

  70. 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…

  71. latitude says:
    January 23, 2011 at 4:04 pm
    R. Gates says:
    January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
    But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.
    =======================================================
    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.
    _____
    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.
    I am still waiting for Smokey to give his citations to peer-reviewed papers that conclusively show that there is absolutely no link between the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s and changes in natural ocean cycles.

  72. As usual, Gates wants skeptics to prove a negative. Will someone please wake me when he understands the scientific method?

  73. DaveK says:
    January 23, 2011 at 4:33 pm:
    “You are just measuring your appendages on a crib board. I must admit there doesn’t seem to be many of the female gender ranting on these sites or spouting ad homs or death threats.”
    Keep investigating… eventually you shall run into Pamela Grey 😉 She is not one of “ad homs”, but she will let you know of her “data” discontent. Kim likes haikus if that strikes your fancy, and Lucia is a genius, but no ad homs. There is a a greeny girl that likes Joe Romm…she writes for a newspaper or something. Good luck finding what you are looking for…

  74. 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.

  75. 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”

  76. I see I’m dueling with an unarmed person. It’s really not fair.
    OK, by the numbers:
    • Gates’ first assertion cannot be validated before 2100
    • As previously explained, relative humidity is declining
    • See link above
    • The null hypothesis has never been falsified. Current parameters are well within historical norms
    Finally, no GCM predicted the lack of warming over the past decade [per Phil Jones]. Therefore, computer models cannot predict. Further, the “cooling stratosphere” has taken the place of the “fingerprint” of global warming: a warming troposphere. But that GCM model prediction was also falsified. So the alarmists moved the goal posts to the stratosphere.
    A stopped clock is right twice a day – just like GCM’s. But the verifiable fact that GCM’s cannot reliably predict blows a hole in the presumption that CAGW is a “theory.” It is not. It has been degraded from a falsified hypothesis, down to a conjecture; an opinion.
    Keep digging, I like it!

  77. 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

  78. R. Gates says:
    January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm:
    “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.”
    Ah, no. Before you can go down the Trenberth route, *you* must prove or disprove GOD. You *can not* prove a negative. The burden of *proof* is upon the plantiff.
    Back to the institution that told you otherwise….

  79. 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?

  80. 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.

  81. R. Gates says:
    January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    “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.”

    My ensemble of models predict the Steelers will win. (Note the time stamp, R. That makes it about 10:00p.m. EST.) Ask tonyb if there’s ever been a time when the Arctic was low on ice cubes. Why are we digging Viking farms out from under the ice? Ask the Magic 8-Ball models when my property will be under a kilometer or two of ice… for the umpteenth time.
    800-year (lagged) correlation is not causation.

  82. Here is an interesting question to Gates. Short term (IE 30 years or less) weather pattern variation systems have been shown to drive temperature trends. Are you saying Gates, that it is CO2 that is driving these weather pattern variations? Was it CO2 that caused the AO to trend positive and it is now CO2 that is causing it to trend negative?

  83. 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.

  84. Smokey,
    1.) The first part of R Gates assertion has been observed – declining Arctic ice. The second part is a prediction for the future, yes.
    2.) Relative humidity is partly dependent on temperature. Relative humidity drops as temperature rises, even if water content remains the same.
    “If the system at State A is isobarically heated (heating with no change in system pressure) then the relative humidity of the system decreases because the saturated vapor pressure of water increases with increasing temperature. This is shown in State B.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity
    Thus, a decline in relative humidity does not contradict the notion that water content of the atmosphere has risen.
    And there has been a measured increase in the water content in the atmosphere:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm
    “The atmosphere’s water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988 …”
    3.) According to the Bureau of Meterology, precipitation has increased by around 22 mm (a little over 2 per cent) in the last 110 years.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi?graph=global_r&region=global&season=0112&ave_yr=T
    4.) Stratospheric cooling:
    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends
    Note that for TLS, the lower stratosphere, there is a large negative trend in the temperature.
    5.) Temperatures are rising as predicted by the models, which is all that can be expected. Whether or not they are within ‘historical norms’ is a matter for debate. All that can be said is that currently the models are doing fine in a predictive sense.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

  85. 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!

  86. Pamela, the glaring error that Gates is making, is not using common sense.
    The fact that they are still trying to prove it, after over 30 years.
    The fact that they all want $100’s of millions more, for bigger computers so they can get it right…
    …says right there that they haven’t got it right, have never gotten it right, and are admitting it

  87. 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!

  88. Pamela Gray,
    A very simplified bit of maths:
    – 5.35 times the natural log of the current concentration of CO2 divided by the concentration in 1959 gives a result of just over 1 watts per square metre.
    – If we take into account the observed warming thus far, that would suggest that the earth is currently around 0.5 watts per square metre out of equilibrium.
    So, more than enough energy to account for observed changes, it would seem, with plenty of change to be come.
    (The amount of energy to cause the observed ice melt would only be a small fraction of that – a few per cent at most.)
    I am sure that will not satisfy you, as it is only very rough, ready and simplified. But it is a start. If you can point me to more technical stuff (calculations of the kind that you are after), then I might be able to build my understanding, which might help me answer your questions (and my own) better.

  89. 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

  90. Tonight, the inmates over at CP are obsessing about what the President will or will not say with regard to climate in Tuesday’s State of the Union (SOTU) message. The warmists are panicked over the fear of doom-funding being cut, even a little bit. They are calling for 100,000+ true believers to mass in front of the Capitol as the SOTU is being delivered. Some reply that the number should be 350,000 in honor of McKibben’s 350.com loons. They feel the position they have staked out crumbling away and are grabbing at straws.
    It’s kind of a sad sight over there. IMHO not too much removed from true psychosis.

  91. 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*.

  92. Gates says:
    “I’m still waiting for your proof that CO2 absolutely cannot affect ocean cycles.”
    Still trying to get skeptics to prove a negative, eh? Study up on the scientific method. You are the one who claims that a tiny trace gas affects ocean cycles.
    As if.

  93. 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.

  94. Schadow says:
    January 23, 2011 at 7:38 pm
    “Some reply that the number should be 350,000 in honor of McKibben’s 350.com loons.”
    Maybe they’d be more successful just going for the 350.

  95. David Gould,
    Still fixated on that bogus “stratospheric cooling,” are we?
    That was the later fall-back position of the alarmist contingent, after the “fingerprint” of tropospheric warming was debunked.
    If it wasn’t for doublethink, climate alarmists couldn’t think at all.

  96. By the way, remember that remnants of two hurricanes this year went into the Hudson Bay area, something not so usual. Perhaps that transport of tropical heat has something to do with it, and if so would have nothing to do with long term declining ice.

  97. 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…

  98. David Gould says:
    January 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    4.) Stratospheric cooling:
    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends
    Note that for TLS, the lower stratosphere, there is a large negative trend in the temperature.

    And if you scroll down your link just a little bit, we see that that entire drop occured before 1995 and seems to be related to reestablishing a new baseline after volcanic eruptions.
    Any explanation why a monotonic increase in CO2 would lead to a graph that looks like that?

  99. 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?

  100. This new song from Minnesotans for global warming is great:

    Set the flamingo freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  101. 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.

  102. I thought the drop of relative humidity was an outcome of the self regulating hypothesis of Miskilczi. Basically CO2 goes up then relative humidity must come down and temperatures remain the same for the same solar input etc. Its to be expected

  103. 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.

  104. David, thanks for your comment. Finally I get to see some math. The problem with your equation is that it does not take into account radiative cooling. This occurs sporadically and in difficult to predict locations, as well as in the normal locations. This is what I refer to when I speak of our leaking system.
    If anthropogenic CO2 has potential heating properties, my thought experiment leads me to suggest that radiative cooling will be as active as CO2 heating to keep things from boiling over.
    Just how radiative cooling will interact with the small increase in CO2 ppm, which is supposed to lead to increased water evaporation, primarily from the ocean surface, should be an interesting discussion. Will the leaky system continue to behave as before or get plugged up?
    http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf
    How would you incorporate this variable in your expression?

  105. 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.

  106. R. Gates says:
    January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    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
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~What I would like Gates to do is show me that none of these has ever happened before. Use your head.

  107. What html to include a picture in my comment?
    REPLY: Just post the URL link to the picture, no tags needed. – Anthony

  108. 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.

  109. ClimateForAll says:
    January 23, 2011 at 9:02 pm
    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.
    —-
    Spoooky… or, two snowmobiles on that ridge where the sun rises,
    minus three feet of snow, poof, two days early.
    (or how about just the wind)

  110. Sometimes when the debate here is too intelligent, one resorts to a bit of humour that perhaps has a touch of relevance.
    People send me things. “The thoughts of Jack Handley” were in the in-box today. Here is a part:
    “I remember that one fateful day when Coach took me aside. I knew what was coming. “You don’t have to tell me,” I said. “I’m off the Team, aren’t I?” “Well,” said Coach, “you never were really ON the team. You made that uniform you’re wearing out of rags and towels, and your helmet is a toy space helmet. You show up at practice and then either steal the ball and make us chase you to get it back, or you try to tackle people at inappropriate times.” It was all true what he was saying. And yet, I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that’s when I felt the handcuffs go on. ”
    I can relate to that. The TEAM. ha ha.
    There’s a lot more unrelated stuff like “Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis. ”
    https://www.msu.edu/~haasadam/thoughts.htm

  111. 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?

  112. David Ball says:
    January 23, 2011 at 9:10 pm
    R. Gates says:
    January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    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
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~What I would like Gates to do is show me that none of these has ever happened before. Use your head
    _____
    Undoubtedly they have all happened before, and if they all occurred at the same time, it might be interesting to look at that cause, but the question isn’t whether they have happened before, but since they are all happening now, then if increasing CO2 isn’t the root cause of the current effects, as the GCM’s indicate, then another viable theory based on real “maths” (thank you Pamela) needs to be brought forward to explain the simultaneous occurrence of all of them. My 25% skeptical side is all ears…

  113. R Gates,
    I also opened up a paper from your list, because I do not carry an inherent bias. It was http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3853.1
    In the Introduction it states that –
    “Although the great majority of numerical GCMs produce
    an ENSO-like dominant mode of tropical Pacific
    interannual variability (Latif et al. 2001), the specific
    properties (pattern, amplitude, and frequency) of
    ENSO anomalies are model dependent.”
    At this point I gave up. I refuse to believe that Nature acts when it is instructed by models on which it is dependent.

  114. R. Gates says:
    January 23, 2011 at 6:12 pm
    Here is the website that has a good animation to clear the clouds and see where they are to the land mass.
    Thanks for the link. It shows quite clearly a property readily accepted by AGW sceptics. There is less cloud above known deserts. Do you need a model to explain why?

  115. 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.

  116. @ wayne says:
    January 23, 2011 at 9:38 pm
    Spoooky… or, two snowmobiles on that ridge where the sun rises,
    minus three feet of snow, poof, two days early.
    (or how about just the wind)
    _______________________________________________
    Just goes to show that ‘alarmism’, without credible science to support claims of
    anthropogenic forcing on climate variables, will go to any length to keep the lie alive.
    Articles upon articles keep surfacing around the web, tying every natural disaster to climate change.
    The phrase ‘climate change’ has become so ambiguous, that the use and its meaning has led many to be disingenuous.
    If a skeptic uses it, it usually means natural variability or as a reference to the AGW movement.
    If a supporter and/or believer of AGW uses it, it usually means either natural or natural and man-made or just man-made.
    One thing is certain. There is enough ambiguity to confuse/disinform those that don’t know the difference.
    There has been enough disinformation towards the view of a skeptic, that skeptics are considered to be controlled by political and/or fossil fuel inclinations. Concluding that skeptics have no regard for the environment or have any real supporting evidence to the contrary of climate change. Thus making everyone else that are not a skeptic, a supporter of ‘climate change’, whatever version of it that includes mans involvement.
    If more could be done by skeptics showing support towards environmental impacts caused by man, and yet show scientifically that nature will vary, independently of mans involvement, less and less ambiguity by the media and more and more scientific truth regarding climate, will change the image of the skeptic.
    Then maybe climate and change and can actually have real substance and not the nightmarish alarmism that being spread by those that wish to profit from ‘Climate Change’.

  117. 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.

  118. 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!

  119. R. Gates says: (January 23, 2011 at 7:59 pm)
    “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?”
    I am not suggesting we move the goal posts. I am suggesting that Hudson Bay, while always included, does not reflect what is truly happening in the Arctic Ocean.

  120. 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.

  121. R.Gates
    The models give you NOTHING at all. De Nada, Rien, Aucun.
    Just think about what you are syaing. It’s BS with a Massive B and S

  122. 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”

  123. Just a little warming poetry on a Sunday, although it is already Monday:
    —————————————————————-
    It is easy to forget oneself.
    To lose one’s path,
    wading through thickets of Mannian bristlecones.
    Cold is the new warm, they say, and warm
    the new cold.
    But goosebumps do not lie.
    Or maybe they do?
    In times of post-normal temperatures,
    anything could happen.
    And it does!
    The cold stare of the sun
    reminds me yet again:
    Better get back to my cozy old urban
    heat island.
    Before it is innundated once and for all
    by yet another wave
    of adjustments.

  124. R. Gates said on Open Thread Sunday
    January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    Correlation doesn’t prove cause. Prediction of an ice free summer based on a linear regression of non-linear behavior and saying CO2 is the cause is subjective speculation. All of the observations you have listed can be attributed to natural cycles associated with the evaporation/condensation and freeze/thaw of water that is controlling the transfer of energy. The global concentration of CO2 is being controlled by these processes. CO2 is just going along for the ride. If you believe you qualify, peer review these presentations. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. http//www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf. http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf. I invite other readers to do the same, and let me know where I have made errors in my analysis. My contact information is on my website http://www.kidswincom.net.

  125. 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.

  126. Anthony, no need to apologise – you seem to have gathered a group of mods who can keep things ticking over. To requote the old cliche – on your deathbed, you will not be saying ‘I wish I had spent more time looking after WUWT’. You have spent more than enough.
    There has been some discussion about non scientists commenting on this blog. The most cutting one was along the lines of how we should spend at least half an hour dissecting whatever was posited before commenting.
    Apart from the ‘leave it to us, we are scientists’ arrogance of this approach, it devalues the contributions of non scientists. I refer to the great former Australian Statistician, Ian Castles, who was one of the first to cast doubt on the IPCC doomsday forecasts. Castles was not an ideologue, but he looked over the IPCC modelling about economic activity and called it for a crock. He could not be ignored. I believe that it was the beginning of the end for the alarmists. No-one has ever disproved what he said. Stern and his pals are not fit to lick his boots.
    Also, it has been very enlightening to hear from people who use modelling in various disciplines. Leaving aside the debates over details, none of them have much faith in the concept of forecasting climate in the long term.
    I am guessing that you are thinking about the future of WUWT – like maybe splitting into two.
    Whatever you do, remember John Daly and Ian Castles – coming up to Australia Day (Jan 26) here!

    • One of the best parts of this blog, and there are many, is the fact that many ordinary people who have a passionate interest can comment without fear of being looked down upon. I can honestly say that, having visited many science blogs , this is the most informative and mind opening site on the WWW. The questions posed and the answers given are excellent even when they are wrong because even wrong questions and answers have great value.
      Often I see a question that has been bothering me answered by Lief or E M Smith and Enneagram and so many others that gives perspective and is often a launch pad for more research. The “big brains” elsewhere are often so dismissive and that’s plain wrong. Many ordinary but interested people want to know more. They are the real people who pay tax and vote and it is us who need to be convinced that we are doing the right things.
      I would say that we all, around the Internet, owe Anthony Watts a huge vote of “kudos dude” for making it possible to add to what we know.
      This is a great site.

  127. Regarding the James Delingpole interview – this is the first I’ve heard of it. Delingpole was an obvious target to attack – a journalist with strident views on the subject, and not a scientist either. It is tough on James – I am sure he will be going over and over all the things he should have said, and it’s a propaganda coup for the warmists, portraying sceptics as confused or even hypocrital.
    It does no good to imagine what kind of response Richard Lindzen or Lord Monckton would have given, but you can bet it would be Nurse who’d be pleading for the filming to stop. But I guess the Nurse steered clear of those two.

  128. Re: Delingpole:
    “Suppose you were ill with cancer would you wish to be treated by “consensus” medicine or something from the quack fringe?”
    Classic “Have you stopped beating your wife” question. The choices given are between standard treatment and a “quack.”
    That is the kind of “science” questions the BBC is reduced to asking.

  129. Re: BBC, This is a must read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
    Peter Sissons: “For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current ­affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to ­answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?
    In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the ­pervading culture. The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left. … ”
    Read the full article, it is very informative about how bias works in the media. Something Sissons has observed first hand for half a century.

  130. Pamela Gray,
    Is there any reason to think that CO2 is special in regards to heating? For example, let us say that the earth was heating not due to CO2 but to an increase (for whatever reason) in the temperature of the sun. Would the radiative cooling balance this heating? If so, how has the earth warmed to (for example) five degrees hotter than our current temperatures?
    If this is not what you are getting at, I apologise.
    Regarding radiative cooling generally, can you give me more information? My first thought was that it was the cooling through radiation into space, but then you talked about evaporation.
    Regarding evaporation, four per cent more water is in the atmosphere, with two per cent more precipitation, so there has been an imbalance of two per cent. The water content of the atmosphere is abotu 12,900 cubic kilometres. Around two per cent of that is 260 cubic kilometres, or 260 trillion litres (check the maths on that, as I might have missed something).
    That would take around 320 billion kilowatt hours to evaporate.
    The area of the earth is around 500 trillion square metres. So that is 500 trillion watts, or (over the course of a year) about 4,380 trillion kilowatt hours. Thus, only a tiny fraction of this excess energy is going into evaporation – approximately .01 per cent. So it can effectively be ignored in any calculations.
    Note: none of the maths here is exact. It also does not take into account some extra heat that would be used up in the various ways that water ends up in the atmosphere.
    If none of this is helpful, let me know – I may be barking up the wrong tree entirely. 🙂

  131. John M,
    According to RSS: ” Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). ”
    The lower stratosphere seems especially sensitive to volancoes, but there is a definite downward trend. The question was asked: what predictions associated with global warming have come true? Stratospheric cooling was a prediction; it is occurring.
    If your argument is that there should be a monotonic decrease in temperature then that is not a prediction associated with global warming, given that a warming trend of between .1 and .2 degrees per decade can be overwhelmed for short periods by other effects (such as volcanos, as demonstrated nicely in that stratospheric temperature graph).

  132. Smokey,
    The troposphere is warming, as demonstrated by both UAH and RSS data.
    However, I agree that it is warming less than expected. But the difference is not all that great. If you multiply the slope of the increase in the UAH data by 0.8 (necessary in order to correct for the fact that it is not surface warming and is expected to be higher than surface warming) and then map that against the natural logarithm of CO2 you get a slope of 2.14. Multiplying by .7 (the natural logarithm of 2) gives you a temperature increase per doubling of 1.7 degrees celsius, which is well within the range of IPCC projections even for equilibrium CO2 – the range for that is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celsius.
    However, as CO2 is not in equilibrium, the better projected number to look at is the expected temperature response to a doubling of CO2 in a non-equilibrium state, which is 2 degrees. So it is a little low, but within the ballpark.

  133. My favorite Owl Box, as presented in Anthony’s Surface Station Project, is the beautiful one that sits on the asphalt, nicely fenced in just a stones throw across the street from the front door of the University of Arizona, Department of Climatism. A text book example by the Experts of how to build a well equipped Urban Heat Island Station.
    Just think; every day for the last 150 years or so, some grad student, has walked across that street, and into that hallowed enclosure to open up the owl box and read the dipstick; twice a day, to get the max and min Temperature for the day.
    (s)he takes those readings back to the department, where an undergrad student carefully enters the numbers into the department super computer; which performs the famous, Tm = (Tmax, + Tmin)/2 , algorithm on the data to come up with the true daily average Temperature.
    Now Tempe Arizona is not known to be at the earth’s global mean Temperature of 288 K; maybe more like 305 K.
    If they plot the daily average Temperature as they have for the last 150 years; somebody is bound to notice that it gose up and down; and somebody might do a Fourier transform of the data and come up with a frequency spectrum for that data.
    Not surprisingly they will find a big spike at zero frequency of amplitude maybe 305 K; of course with error bars around it. There will be a prominent signal in a fairly narrow band around 1/365.25 days which a research team has concluded is found to correlate with an r^2 of 0.99 to the frequency of the earth orbit about the sun; which the team has tentatively assigned as a source for that signal. There’s an almost imperceivable signal hardly distinguishable from the noise, centered around 1/11 years, and a somewhat clearer signal at 1/22 years. Nobody has been around the department long enough to come up with a cause for these; but some perky frosh lady suggested it had something to do with sunspots. And then there is a signal at around 1/30 years, and a harmonic at 1/60 years, which are assumed to be related to the standard 30 and sixty year periods during which climatism theories are considered valid.
    Moving up the scale, there’s a small line appearing about every 1/27 days or so, and this has researchers bamboozled. Finally there’s a very prominent line at 1/24 hours, which may be just a false noise signal due to the Owl box being opened twice a day to read the dipstick. Now of course the Fourier spectrum also has a background continuum of non descript signals of unknown origin.
    Now the Profs at UA could just send this data (the dipstick readings) to Dr James Hansen at NASA to mix into his GUESSTemp algorithm; but that big spike of 305 K at zero frequency really sets Hansen’s alarm bells ringing; because he doesn’t like to see big and morove variabe numbers there from different stations.
    So to sanitize the data at UA, the profs have come up with a “trick” to “hide the Temp”, so they noticed that for the period from 1960 to 1990 the average of all the daily zero frequency signals just happened to be 305 K +/- 2 deg C
    So to please Dr Hansen; they arbitrarily subtracted 305 from their zeroi freuency signal, which made it zero +/- 2 deg C, and they stuck up a post it note with 305 K on it inside the Owl box; for future reference.
    Now to be sure that Dr Hansen doesn’t get mixed up, and believe that Tempe has become a major ski area; they label the data they send him; not UA Temperature; but UA “Anomaly”, to warn him that it is not supposed to be zero Kelvins in Tempe Arizona. But of course every other station is sending Hansen similar corruptions of the data, with also near zero signals for the zero frequency signal; so he doesn’t suspect anything.
    Now unfortunately, although it doesn’t rain in Tempe, you sometimes do get some high clouds at night which help to keep the place so damn hot during the day, and often in the early morning those high clouds block the sun, and make it colder than it is supposed to be, and as a result of these clouds comign and going, it turns out that the Tempe Temperature varies a lot faster than one cycle per day, and sometimes when they have lots of cloudiness; usually during some Goof Tournament, the Temperature can rise and fall several times during the day.
    Well the problem is that that 305 K signal at zero frequency that is squished to zero +/- 2 deg C by the “trick” is the average of all the other temperatures, and it doesn’t give the correct average unless you read the thermometer at least two times per day; and you only get the right answer then under special circumstances which don’t apply to Temper, and particularly don’t apply when you have the much faster variations caused by the clouds and their come and go at random.
    The twice daily samples ONLY contain sufficient information to correctly calculate the correct zero frequency signal, when there is no Temperature change data at frequencies faster than one cycle per 24 hours; because of their twice daily reading schedule.
    As a result of the faster changes the average of the max and min no longer give the correct value for the true daily average Temperature; so the 305 K number is erroneous, and when you subtract 305 from the zero frequency signal you now have some unknown error, due to the improper sampling regimen. Other frequency signals have also been corrupted by the sampling errors, and together they combine to make the zero signal erroenous in a completley unknown fashion; and subtracting the fixed 305 number from the computed average does nothing to fix the problem; the “Anomaly” number is just as false as the original 305 K number is; so nothing has been altered by the anomalizing algorithm; the data is still junque, and if Hansen uses it, he is going to get rubbish as well.
    the process of reducing the actual temperature data to an anomalousd Temperature number, does absolutely nothing as far as curing the lack of proper sampling methodology, and the anomaly is as corrupt as the original station average Temperature for the day was.
    So you can use the Tempe number instead of reading the Temperature down at La Paz Mexic, 1200 km away; but the value oyu get is bound to be wrong; and anomalizing it won’t solve the problem.

  134. Please put out the alert to watch for this likely Mann bashing:
    “Tomorrow, I’m going to give my state of the union and it’s based on the rings of a tree.” -Glenn Beck, on tomorrow’s show.

Comments are closed.