I’m off to ICCC6 today, ahead of time as I have other things to do in Washington ahead of the conference. Posting will be light. Guest posts are encouraged. Authoirs that may want to submit stories please use the link on the sidebar. Bear in mind that I generally don’t repost stories from other website sin entirety, so be sure to excerpt stories referenced elsewhere.
I have a request for the WUWT communty while I’m traveling.
My talk at ICCC6 is about uncertainty in the temperature record. While I think I’ve got a good handle on it, I welcome submissions and graphs/imagery that readers have to illustrate the issue. I may have already covered portions of it, but I can see your input as being helpful in pointing out things I may have missed. So why not crowdsource the issue?
Feel free to expand on the uncertainty issue in other data sets as well. Kemp/Mann 2011 for example that Willis has illustrated.
Anyone attending ICCC6 feel free to look me up to say hello. I’ll be the first speaker in the first session.
More: http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maldives revolt against AGW: http://i.gadling.com/2011/06/26/maldives-meltdown/
“As political unrest swept through the Muslim nations of North Africa, even the remote island-nation of the Maldives was caught up in its own Arab Spring in the form of political protest and street clashes. One major difference: Efforts in the Maldives were focused on pushing out a young, democratically elected president and replacing him with an aging despot. President Mohammed Nasheed, 44, has gained accolades around the globe for his commitment to preparing the Maldives for the coming impacts of climate change on an island nation and simultaneously attempting to turn the country carbon neutral.”
davidmhoffer says:
June 26, 2011 at 10:11 pm
I saw a graph a long time ago that was by (I think) Richard Lindzen. He took the NASA/GISS temperature record and plotted it on a degrees Kelvin graph that started at zero and went to about 350 if recollection serves me right.
Is this the graphs you mean?
http://how-it-looks.blogspot.com/2011/01/temperature-anomalies-and-graphing-data.html
Although here the author suggests this is not really a good graph to use.
Poll: Do you think tackling climate change should be a priority for Australia?
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html
http://www.geoffstuff.com/spaghetti%20Darwin.jpg
Nature article prior to Hansen’s 1988 alarmist spiel in Congress:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v329/n6135/pdf/329138a0.pdf
“The net effect of clouds is to provide a negative feedback on surface temperature, rather than the positive feedback found in earlier general circulation model studies without considering cloud optical depth feedbacks.”
h/t http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-climate-science-was-science.html (has a New Scientist blurb on it too).
JB Williamson;
Similar to that, but that’s not the one I recall. And it doesn’t have the error bars or the natural variation bars. the one you point to is part of an article explaining why it isn’t relevant and trying to make an analogy to stock market trending.
It is relevant, particularly in the context of natural variability and statistical error bars. The stock market is a completely artificial measure of value. It is entirely constructed of artificial measurements invented and agreed to through negotiation by human beings. Climate is governed by the laws of science, and they respond to neither artificial measurement systems nor negotiation by human beings or anyone else.
Open thread contribution
Why should I not be concerned about the reduction in Arctic ice volume as reported by PIOMAS here which suggests a reduction in volume of some 10,000km3 since 1979 and falling?
It seems substantial and worrisome to me, given that volume ranges from 12,000 to 29,000 km3 (approx) over the year.
Thanks,
Dermot
Worry away Dermot.
The reduction of ice volume is a naturally occurring event, but worrying about it isn’t going to do much good.
Remember that old world liberalism was a powerful force, in a real debate, not a cultural war, once the Democrats took off their “labor party” white hoods to see the light of day for a moment or two, historically.
Adenoid Hynkel (dictator of Tomania): “Soldiers: Don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel; who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate; only the unloved hate, the unloved and the unnatural.
Soldiers: Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written, “the kingdom of God is within man” — not one man, nor a group of men, but in all men, in you, you the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.
Then, in the name of democracy, let us use that power! Let us all unite!! Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie! They do not fulfill their promise; they never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people!! Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise!! Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness.”
No, the energy isn’t there.
There is no shortage of energy.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/379255
Travel with care, have a great time.
Via Andrew Bolt’s blog:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_age_admits_theres_a_debate_after_all#84981
You can go to The Age (a warmist Australian newspaper) and vote on whether or not tackling climate change should be a priority for Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html#ixzz1QSzYzTOJ
Why not drop in and cast a vote? It’s not limited to Australians!
Anthony, I hope you took your own chair http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
(scroll don to June 22)
Drat. Wrong url. Try http://icecap.us/index.php. June 22 under Political Climate column.
A quick question for the knowledgeable. I don’t have the time to more than browse a few blogs so there are quite a few gaps in my understanding of AGW.
When discussing CO2 levels, the usual reference is to Mauna Loa, presumably because the measurements there are the most uncontaminated? Regardless, I am curious. Are measurements made elsewhere? How do they compare?
Given that CO2 levels of the past must be deduced from proxies, what do those same proxies show when compared to modern instrumental data? How confident can we be regarding proxy derived estimates of CO2 levels for say the past 2000 years?
Ode to James Hansen and the “fools” he left behind:
Anthony
You carried an article by myself on Uncertainties in historical instrumental temperatures on your site here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability-2/
It covered a great deal of historical information on reliability not often seen. In particular there are several links to very old books which indicates that there was a problem with the way temperatures were recorded even back then.
Don’t forget that Pat Frank also wrote an excellent article on this subject. Whilst he came from a mathematical angle and mine was from a historic viewpoint we both came to exactly the same conclusion-the temperature record shouldn’t be relied on.
tonyb
Graeme M
As regards Carbon Dioxide measurements, if you would like to read my article AND the comments in reaction to it, you will find a treasure trove of information from all sides of the debate
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
Regarding sea level rise, I understand that Atlantis is completely under water, as are large parts of Pangea…
Steven Brown, thank you I voted and as of now 74% are against the tax and this our leading but financially failing left wing newspaper. Who would have thunk such a result.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
June 27, 2011 at 1:20 am
“No, the energy isn’t there. ”
There is no shortage of energy.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/379255
But shortage of science. The solar input can be likened to a little boy peeing into the canal upstream.
NOW SHOWING UPWARDS OF 1.8 INCHES IN THE NORTH BAY THROUGH TUESDAY EVENING…WITH LESS THAN A HALF INCH ELSEWHERE. THE GFS AND ECWMF FORECAST CONSIDERABLY LESS RAINFALL IN THE NORTH BAY…GENERALLY ONLY ABOUT A HALF INCH. LATEST AMSU PW OUTPUT SHOWS A MOIST PLUME OF AIR WITH PRECIPITABLE WATER VALUES IN EXCESS OF 1.5 INCHES IS FEEDING INTO THIS SYSTEM ALONG 40N. SO THE POTENTIAL IS CERTAINLY THERE FOR RAINFALL TOTALS TO APPROACH THOSE FORECAST BY THE NAM. THE AIRMASS WILL BECOME SOMEWHAT UNSTABLE ON TUESDAY AS COLDER AIR BEGINS TO MOVE IN ALOFT…BUT WIDESPREAD CLOUDINESS WILL INHIBIT SURFACE HEATING ON TUESDAY AND LESSEN POTENTIAL FOR THUNDERSTORMS. IN ANY EVENT…THEIR MAY BE ENOUGH FRONTAL LIFT FOR EMBEDDED CONVECTION ALONG THE FRONTAL RAIN BAND. SO WILL KEEP SLIGHT THUNDERSTORM CHANCES IN THE FORECAST FOR TUESDAY AND TUESDAY EVENING.
========================================================
OK, I’ll write it: 2011, The Year Without a Summer.
We’re still experiencing a mid spring weather pattern (or is it an early Fall one, hard to tell which). Gulf of Alaska storms, less frequent than “Winter” but present at this latitude at a lower frequency of occurrence. In between storms we alternate between offshore wind events and a certain degree of the marine layer at and near the coast. Classic early May (or mid to late October) conditions.
More information on solar power costs:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/06/announcement-bank-america-putting-billions-solar/
I can’t tell for sure whether all costs are included, but there is no mention of subsidies other than the federal loan guarantee.
733MW of power at a cost of $2.6 billion gives (assuming at least 80% of rated power for at least 30 years for at least 250 days per year for at least 8 hours per day): 3.52E10 kwh at a cost of $2.6E9, or $0.0739/kwh.
As concentrated PV power is mass produced, the cost per kwh should be cut in half in a few years. We’ll see.
Septic Matthew says: June 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm
More information on solar power costs:
[…]
733MW of power at a cost of $2.6 billion gives (assuming at least 80% of rated power for at least 30 years for at least 250 days per year for at least 8 hours per day): 3.52E10 kwh at a cost of $2.6E9, or $0.0739/kwh.
My 1KW rated, fixed panels give significant output for less than six hours per day maximum, and output just over 4 kilowatt hours per day on average, in western Colorado. The most I have ever seen is just over 5 in a day, and rarely. Unless the panels move, the output will be half and therefore the KWH cost 2X.
(A) Liberals = NO!
(B) Conservatives = ROW!
(C) Libertarians = GO!
A+B+C = INFINITY and the Roman Empire, the Renaissance, Reformation, and Rocky Balboa.
“Whenever I draw a circle, I immediately want to step out of it.” – Buckminster Fuller
“God is fully contained in the last digit of pi.” – Nik