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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@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/
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!
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.”
Read and enjoy contemplating the possibilities. http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf
I’ll bet it’s the football games! (An activity many American Dads share with their children.) Have fun, Anthony!
“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 !!
“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/
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Seems like an appropriate place to put this….
Just been reading about cold fusion and thought that seeing it’s a weekend and many of you like experimenting, check out this science experiment!
http://www.asciimation.co.nz/beer/
Enjoy in moderation.
Tim.
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
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….
Ah, he’s watching football, its the last two playoffs leading up to the superbowl.
Once again a prominent AGW proponent is claiming he is the target of death threats. (The Moonbat)
Can the quoted excepts from a blog really be called death treats? We wife has told me 100’s of times she will kill me, but I have survived 25 years of these threats…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/jan/21/debate-issues-death-threats
How about a discussion about scientific fraud and bias? I have been a little surprised that some of the recent frauds have gotten less attention.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/understanding-scientific-fraud-part-1/
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/understanding-scientific-bias-part-2/
We are all guilty to some degree of bias, but the nasty fraud still happens plenty in the scientific community.
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
← 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.
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?
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? 😉
Query,
The square miles of the earths surface and the square miles of the Earth’s outer atmosphere would be nice also.
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”.