Open Thread

Is he gone yet?
Ok! Break out the funny hats!

OK, I have a question for those who like to solve problems….
Assume that all the ice in the world melted, how much of an increase in the sea level would we see?

Looking at the solar images for today.. it seems that “SSN of 25” is the new “Blank” (-_-)

Smokey says: August 13, 2011 at 11:18 am
and what side of the road is the sign on?

The whole subject of ‘denial’ often gets incredibly emotive – for obvious reasons. However, Orestes uses the term with the assumption that CAGW is not only true, but CLEARLY true for anyone of normal intellectual functioning. I find the best context in which to place this is Salem around 300 years ago. If you couldn’t see witchcraft and witches everywhere you were in denial – according to the priests of the day.
I usually see myself as merely quite sceptical – of most things, but especially CAGW. If pushed, though, I’d have to admit that (until I see some evidence) I deny it.
Witches too

Roger Sowell, Oreskes’ book is devoted primarily to attack a particular group of scientist of whom only one still lives to defend himself. He (Fred Singer) has defended himself many times, here for instance:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/science_and_smear_merchants.html
Although another scientist she attacks, William Nierenberg is now deceased, his son still lives, and maintains a blog where you can find extensive rebuttals of the attacks on his father:
http://nierenbergobservations.blogspot.com/
Sadly Robert Jastrow and Fred Seitz have no one in particular devoted to defending them, but given how shoddy and biased her scholarship has been shown to be attacking Singer and Nierenberg, I see no reason to believe any of her attacks on the others.

I recently upgraded an ancient version of FreeCiv and to my utter chagrin and disgust, I find that the global warming feature annoys me and it cannot be turned off.
It’s not the global warming per se, but that just like the real AGW, this ‘feature’ totally destroys the fun of the game by introducing tedious make work, a digital version of German recycling (aka washing your litter and separating it into 9+ containers)
Meh, just wanted to vent, those pesky zealots seems to plaster their junk science anywhere and everywhere, even into games. Is there nowhere safe?

Apropos of nothing I present three unrelated links:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/06/29/rspb.2011.1193.abstract?papetoc
http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/

Hexe Froschbein says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“It’s not the global warming per se, but that just like the real AGW, this ‘feature’ totally destroys the fun of the game by introducing tedious make work, a digital version of German recycling (aka washing your litter and separating it into 9+ containers)”
Heh. We’re not the only crazies on the planet.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/militant-environmentalists-call-for-executions-and-decisive-ecological- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB1o-Pt7FCo&NR=1
(h/t Marc Morano)

More on the Charles Monnett story. This reminds me of the sotry in July where it was showd that the EPA grants money to environmental groups that then sue them to push their agenda forward. The article here and numerous other places ( http://americaswatchtower.com/2011/07/09/the-epas-circle-of-trust )
Now read this article ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/13/watchdog-group-slams-epas-scientific-integrity-proposal/ )
Do they look familiar? Check out their leftist web site http://www.peer.org/
Their phone number is (202) 265-7337 which ironically is also the same number for a Patagonia store in Washington, DC.
Research skills, I has them

In all seriousness I wish to know why the bottoms of the oceans are much colder than the surface.
I know the surface gets sunlight during the day and radiates heat at night.
What I don’t understand is why radiant heat is not trapped at the bottom.
Why is IR radiation from the surface not been trapped at the bottom of the ocean?

Laurie Bowen says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm
As for the increase in sea levels, for me that would depend on whether you think continents can float or rise with the sea level . . .
===========================================================
exactly….
There will be no measurable sea level rise at all…
…the UofColorado is having to add to the measured sea levels now because the weight of all the new water is making the sea floor sink…..pushing it down…………….That is the way they explain the lack of measured sea level rise…….
So, the more ice melts, the more water goes into the oceans, the more weight pushes the sea floor down more……no measured sea level rise at all

pokerguy says:
August 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“But beyond that, what do you guys think we lay skeptics can do, if anything, to enlighten people? We can read the blogs, we can donate money to them, but every time I even bring the subject up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…”
Item number one is take every opportunity to write letters to your local newspapers, if you are in a position to reveal your identity. (Isn’t it a sad day in America when such a thing must be said?) These are focused letters about specific events so that you capture the attention of your local audience. Do your homework and focus on details.
Item number two is volunteer to give lectures in schools. Such volunteering is to be arranged with individual teachers not school bureaucrats.
Item number three is attend official meetings of local government agencies whose planning addresses climate change in some way. Do your homework. Explain how risky it is to dedicate large amounts of dollars to mitigation.
Item number four is the same as three except do it with federal agencies, especially anything involving your congressional representative. Notice that you are lobbying your local and federal officials.
There are more. I bet you get the picture.
All these efforts are mutually supportive. When you can quote a communication from Congressman Handsome in one of your letters to the editor, people begin to take notice.

u.k. (us) says:
Aug. 13, 2001 at 1:32 pm
We get that rumbling thunder frequently here in N.E. Colorado. We have always called it “hail” thunder. It means that someone, close-by and soon, will be getting hail. We had that kind of thunder twice last week, on both Tuesday and Wednesday, and although I did not get hail at my house, there was hail within a few miles of me both days, breaking windows and devastating corn and hay fields. Since it is so flat and treeless here, we can see storms coming and going for great distances, so I have wondered if that thunder has to do with our geography. ( apparently not ) It can rumble for up to an hour at a time, and as with your experience, we see very little lightning.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/212935/188/Large-hail-sweeps-through-Sterling-causes-damage-
watch the slideshow for an idea of the hail size

Here’s one I have been dwelling on…….
In minerals exploration and assessment of drill core data, we have a whole discipline known as geostatistics – which in effect says that knowing the data at a point is not enough, we need to also look at its (three dimensional) location. This way, we avoid overweighting or underweighting (say) three high samples collected close together, commpared to a lower one more distant.
Simple question – given that some weather stations reportedly show warming, and some show cooling, how is handled in working out global temperature shifts?
Viz – is each station weighted according to the surface area between it and the next adjacent station? Looking at the post a few weeks ago, it seems to me we have clusters of lots of weather stations in developed locations which show warming. But in less developed locations (or on oceans) we have sparse stations, some showing cooling. Surely we don’t weight these all equally in working out global “average” temperatures, do we?
Anybody?

Mike

This is a college course lecture and explains how the basic CO2 warming equations were derived.
He derives them for the earth , mars and Venus.
He does correct for albedo which is quite high for Venus.

Surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*R*R
Mean radius of the earth is 6,371 km
Surface area of the earth is 510,064,366 km^2 (assuming a sphere)
Oceans are 71% of earth’s surface or 362,145,700 km^2
Greenland land ice volume est at 5,100,000 km^3
Antarctic land ice volume est at 30,000,000 km^3
Total land ice (35,100,000 m^3) divided by surface area (362,145,700) m^2 is 0.097 km or 97 m.
Ignores glaciers (are most land-locked?), isostatic effects of extra water (puts downward pressure on ocean bottom), increasing ocean percent as water rises, non-spherical nature of the earth, inability of New Yorkers to notice the difference and ice in the scotch (although that shouldn’t be a problem if you don’t empty your glass).

It’s like 1859. BHO is James Buchannan. The Tea Party has arrived on the scene just like the Republicans had just arrived in 1855. The Cold Civil War we are currently in will go hot in the urban areas in 2014.

Federal judge throws out Obama drilling rules.

Open thread!
Today I’m going to introduce my 5 year old son to some REAL culture! Star Wars – A New Hope (note I call it the 1979 name, not the remade name). 🙂

@John Whitman
I haven’t read Directive 51, but Niven, Flynn and Pournelle’s “Fallen Angels” seems to be a scarily possible near future (though they are too optimistic by far – they assume permanent human habitation in space). Also about what happens when the enviro-crazies take over.
Full book is offered free online by the publisher here: http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/067172052X/067172052X.htm?blurb

Roger Sowell says:
August 13, 2011 at 11:25 am
I’m presently reading Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway. Specifically, Chapter 6 on “The Denial of Global Warming.” Has anyone else read this? If you have, what are your thoughts on that chapter?
***
Roger – in my country (NZ) most Global Warming books disappeared from the bookshops a year or more ago. Such books that are left are mostly being remaindered. No-one is reading or buying them.

Propaganda is like arrest warrants, once the intended are jailed (Taxed) the paper work is sent on to those still free, who think for themselves.

“He (Fred Singer) has defended himself many times, here for instance”
It is a matter of record that Singer posted a false claim (most glaciers are increasing) on his website, and when challenged, sourced the claim to a study in ‘Science’ that was a complete fabrication. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists
An outright lie. I think anyone behaving in this manner forfeits the right to be taken seriously, certainly Singer is no scientist. Some might even say that such behaviour damages the image of climate scepticism. Perhaps somebody would care to ‘defend’ that?

Latitude misleads
———
That is the way they explain the lack of measured sea level rise…….
———
They don’t say that at all.
———-
So, the more ice melts, the more water goes into the oceans, the more weight pushes the sea floor down more……no measured sea level rise at all
———-
Bad Story telling. Can’t happen because the density of rock is much higher than the density of water.

1863,1963
Abraham Lincoln assassinated, JFK assassinated

I think you mean 1865. Lincoln was elected to a second term, which he did not finish. I tend to believe in 98 year behavioural cycles . . .

Here’s a quiz for your Saturday evening entertainment.
Who wrote this?
“Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
The answer can be found at ClimateAudit.

Laurie Bowen says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm
As for the increase in sea levels, for me that would depend on whether you think continents can float or rise with the sea level . . .

Rest easy. They don’t. They do, however, respond to loads above them. When glaciers advance over a continent, their weight press the continents downward because the continents, like icebergs, “float” in the semi-fluid mantle. As glaciers retreat, the continents rebound and regain isostatic equilibrium. It’s a slow process. N.A. is still rising slowly where the last glaciers used to be. Melting the ice in Greenland or the Antarctic would have the same effect.
However, by the same reasoning, adding all that fresh water to the oceans should cause the ocean floor to drop a small amount. But I believe that was mentioned in the question.

Texas drought is worst in recorded history. Rolling blackouts as Texas Electric Grid declares Level 1 Emergency. So where is all that much-touted wind energy we spent so much money on?
See http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/texas-electric-grid-declares-level-1.html
Turns out the wind blows when you least need power – suckers!

LazyTeenager says:
August 13, 2011 at 6:22 pm
=====
Someone needs a geology lesson.

@DCC:
– Texas is not having, and did not have, rolling blackouts during the recent heat wave. A level 1 alert simply calls for conservation, such as time-shifting discretionary electrical usage, plus calls on all available generating resources. To quote the ERCOT website, ” EEA 1 gives ERCOT operators authority to call on all available power supply, including power from other grids if available.”
Texas ERCOT did issue a stage 2 alert, where some consumers were shut off – with their prior agreement.
source: http://www.ercot.com/content/alerts/html/normal.html
Texas today and yesterday is receiving rain, with 3 inches of rain in some places. (South of Lubbock, per a close friend of mine who lives there.)
Wind power is not designed to replace dispatchable power such as gas-fired power plants. Not until economically attractive, grid-scale electric power storage (or the equivalent) is available will wind power do so.
Wind allows natural gas-fired power plants to throttle back, and use less gas than they would without wind power. The impact is exactly the same as having part of the grid load reduced. Wind power, in its current form, is simply a way to produce power without burning natural gas, or in some places, coal. It is not meant to be, nor is it, a replacement for dispatchable power.

DCC says:
August 13, 2011 at 6:52 pm
@pokerguy who said “every time I even bring [AGW] up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…”
Agreed. The believers either get mad or refuse to debate intelligently. It might be best to get a new set of friends. If that’s too onerous, stop bringing it up in their presence. Nothing short of time will solve the problem. Give them a way to save face by never having to justify their beliefs again. However, if they bring it up and try to provoke you, just smile and say “You know I’m waiting to see some of the more unusual forecasts to come true. I am not willing to modify the economy ‘just in case they might.’”
=======================================
Switch the topic to polar bear populations. Most people who don’t follow this think that there are maybe 12 or 15 polar bears left or something. The fact that you can tell them that polar bear populations have increased, and back it up, even with data from warm-ish sites the following day, has been a kind of impeachment moment for them on more than one occasion.
Actually, the super highly educated people I hang out with frequently here in the Berkeley area know this is a crock. If you think they’re Al Gore fans, forget it. I’ll expand on this, if anyone’s interested.

John R T
Paul Johnson writes interesting history. Modern Times was the first one I read and I learned alot about how the world operated then.
and we need to beware, both in science and politics, of dictatorial edicts.

RE: Philip Clarke
Monbiot says:
“I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat. ”
Yet a search for 1989 “Science” articles with “glacier” in the text provides 31 results including:

Growth of Greenland Ice Sheet: Measurement
H. JAY ZWALLY, ROBERT A. BINDSCHADLER, ANITA C. BRENNER, JUDY A. MAJOR, and JAMES G. MARSH
Science 22 December 1989: 1587-1589. [DOI:10.1126/science.246.4937.1587]
…region geophysical surveys glacial geology glaciers Greenland Greenland ice sheet ice movement ice sheets measurement…ofthe ocean (2) and melting of small glaciers (3) contribute to sea-level rise, the…in a warm-er climate (4) is ofconcern. Glaciers respond to both precipitation and temperature…

and

Geophysics from Triton to the Deep Blue Sea
Science 22 December 1989: 1562-1563. [DOI:10.1126/science.246.4937.1562-a]
…views on the effects ofglobal warming on glaciers, especially in Antarcti-ca. Researchers…will, in fact, be the net growth ofsome glaciers. For instance, they concluded that the…warming effects on other aspects of glacier dynamics, Meier came up with his modest…

and

Bringing Down the Sea Level Rise
RICHARD A. KERR
Science 22 December 1989: 1563. [DOI:10.1126/science.246.4937.1563-a]
…views on the effects ofglobal warming on glaciers, especially in Antarctica. Researchers…will, in fact, be the netgrowth ofsome glaciers. For instance, they concluded that the…warming effects on other aspects of glacier dynamics, Meier came up with his modest…

netdr, thanks for the video, but I don’t understand his equation. Note that I can do differential and integral calculus in my sleep. But why is it that the energy from the “glass pane” that comes back down to Earth isn’t reflected back up? The infinite sum of halves is the original value. For example, start with 1 and add up all successive halves, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc. and you will get a total of 1. Note that this has to be true, otherwise you’d have only half the energy going back into space and have a runaway black hole system (though I’m dubious about the exact 1/2 figure he’s using anyhow as this would effectively create twice the incoming energy if Earth was a black body).
Also, his faucet and sink analogy is flawed. The obstacle to the drain works with the sink because the output path is independent from the input path. With the atmosphere, the obstacle would block both incoming and outgoing energy. I know he’s talking about CO2 blocking infrared and not sunlight. But this won’t be true of all greenhouse gases.

Solar cooking…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/theweekinpictures/8698574/The-week-in-pictures-12-August-2011.html?image=31
Doesn’t give the prices of the menu.

The citation for Dr. J.D. Goodridge’s paper is “Goodridge JD (1992) Urban bias influences on long-term California air temperature trends . Atmospheric Environment 26B (1): 1-7”

Discussing CO2 as an atmospheric percentage, I throw this out as 4 parts in every 10,000. So if the parts are meters (or metres), select 10 kilometres as a familiar distance between two local landmarks known to you and your audience. Then say less than 4 metres of that distance is the atmospheric CO2 content.
Substitute yards, feet or miles as needed.

Mark reckons
———
Actually, the amount of energy is determined by the energy input from the sun relative to the the amount of energy that escapes. The pressure, temperature, and volume will adjust accordingly coupled with other factors as well (gravity.)
Mark
————
mostly correct since you paraphrase what I said.
But for an atmosphere fixed in quantity the pressure at the surface is a constant– you were wrong about that, it does not change with temperature.

@ pokerguy, re interacting with CAGW believers: (posted these on my blog, but copied them over here for convenience.)
Below are some additional questions (about a dozen) that CAGW believers may be asked to get them thinking:
– When CO2 was much higher in the past compared to today, why did ice ages occur? Why didn’t the earth have runaway warming with hotter summers and melting polar ice caps with much higher CO2?
– What caused the ice ages to end, was it increasing CO2? There have been dozens of ice ages with warm periods in between. Precious few humans were around, though.
– How did the recently-discovered ancient hunter get beneath a glacier in the Alps, especially since he was mortally wounded with an arrow? Did he dig a hole through the glacier to die under there? Or was it so warm in those days (roughly 6,000 years ago) that the Alpine pass was free of ice, so that later snows covered the body and became a glacier? How could our time be the warmest on record, then? (refers to the pre-historic man’s body found in an Alpine pass, as the present glacier continues to recede.)
– The Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period were both much warmer than today, so how did Polar bears survive those warm periods? PETA and WWF were not around back then.
– Why is the sea level decreasing off the coast of California? If CO2 causes oceans to rise, why is the Pacific not rising?
– Why are sunspots so very critical to earth’s average climate? Why were there so few sunspots during both the recent cold events (Maunder and Dalton)? Why were there so many sunspots during the 1980’s and 1990’s? (in all fairness, it is painfully obvious that no one understands sun spots, as the recent lack of sunspots came as a bit of a surprise, even to the experts.)
– Why do climate scientists (Mann, Hansen, and others) hide their data for years, and never reveal their calculation methods? What are they hiding?
– Why is the Main Stream Media so silent on Chiefio’s blog results, the March of the Thermometers? see http://chiefio.wordpress.com
– Why do thousands of scientists say (signed their names) that man-made global warming is junk science?
– Why do process control engineers know that increasing CO2 above 350 ppm cannot possibly have any role in changing earth’s climate? (This refers to Dr. Pierre Latour, and his excellent writings in Hydrocarbon Processing, and my summaries on my blog. In short, for CO2 to be the control mechanism for the planet’s temperature would completely violate the laws of process control. However, those laws are inviolable. Nobody can defeat those laws; they are much like the laws of thermodynamics.)
– If the science is settled, why are governments funding additional research in the billions of dollars per year?
– And this one just to get them thinking about the entire concept of Environmental Doom: if the oceans are so fragile and vulnerable to oil spills, how did the oceans manage after all the millions of barrels of oil were spilled in World War II attacks on oil tankers? Hundreds of oil tankers were torpedoed and sunk, and many hundreds more of other oil-fueled ships went to the bottom, leaking oil from their fuel tanks. (reference: “The Prize” by Daniel Yergin, pp 350 – 370) For those who doubt this, travel to Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii and visit the sunken battleship Arizona. One can stand on the memorial just above the Arizona, and personally observe the oil still leaking out. I have done this. It’s still leaking.

Do we have any idea about the composition of earth’s atmosphere billions of years ago, before the advent of photosynthesis? There can’t have been much oxygen. Oxygen is very reactive – most of it would be present in water, CO2, and bound to various rocks. There would have been a lot of CO2 – maybe 10%.
Then along comes 6CO2 + 6H20 = C6H12O6 +6O2 and CO2 gets stripped out of the atmosphere and oxygen gets added.
The shortage of CO2 is now a limiting factor in plant growth.
But the warmists keep telling us we need to make less CO2.
Why?

Paul Ehrlich summed it up this way: “You often hear people say scientists should not be advocates. I think that is bull.” ……..”How you judge a good scientist, in part, is by what they choose to be curious about,”

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/august/ehrlich-scientist-advocates-081111.html
WOW! So, go ahead and fudge data, intimidate critics, bias conclusions, yada, yada, as long as you’re curious about and advocate for the agenda you’re a good scientist. That explains how certain people are still employed.

paulc says (August 13, 2011 at 8:35 pm) [snip]
Paul and John, I concur; two thumbs up on Paul Johnson’s Modern Times. It was recommended to me some years ago by a stranger who saw one of my letters to the editor in the local paper.

Corey says:
August 13, 2011 at 7:20 pm
“Off topic but the sun is spotless for the first time in 198 days.”
No one seems to care. The SSN for 14/08 is 35! Even SIDC has recorder a SSN greater than zero for the 14/08.
SS24.com as well as spaceweather.com claim that the earth-facing side is spotless yet they both display SSN 35.
http://solen.info/solar/ report for 14/08 shows that of the three numbered regions, 2 are plages and one has an area of zero.
It seems as though observations that are pointing toward a grand minimum will be ignored at all costs.

I hope you find it. Get some good pictures Anthony.

he Huffington Post is soliciting people who are looking for work or
have a low paying job in Texas.
Quote:
With Texas’ minimal regulation and low taxes — and Perry’s cheerleading
— a spike in job growth during the past few years became known as the
Texas Miracle. The rise in oil and gas prices, as well as a long-time
state law protecting homeowners, helped stave off the recession for a
while. And as a result, a miracle myth was created, with little
exploration as to what impact Perry’s policies actually had on the
economic picture. The miracle is that anyone would call minimum-wage
jobs a miracle. Of the all the jobs in Texas created last year, 37
percent paid at or below minimum wage — and the state leads the nation
in total minimum wage workers, according to a recent New York Times
report.
“The important thing to do is not to just count jobs but to look at what
kinds of jobs are being created in Texas,” explained Dick Lavine, a
Senior Fiscal Analyst with the Center for Public Policy Priorities.
“Texas is tied for last with Mississippi for the highest percentage of
minimum wage jobs and Texas is by far the leader of residents who don’t
have health insurance. It’s low wage jobs without any benefits.”
This resonates with Gibbs at the ARCH, which created a 100-bed unit on
the third floor for homeless night-shift workers who needed a place to
sleep during the day. These workers, Gibbs said, included bakers from
downtown hotels who simply couldn’t afford Austin rents.
The ARCH may want to think about expanding its homeless worker unit. If
there is continued job growth in Texas, the trend continues to point
toward the low-skilled, low-wage variety. According to a just-released
Georgetown University study, Texas ranks 41 among all 50 states in the
percentage of jobs requiring post-secondary education.
HuffPost readers: If you’ve become recently unemployed in Texas or
struggle with a low-wage job in the Lone Star State, we want to hear
from you. Tell us your stories by emailing
jason.cherkis@huffingtonpost.com. Please include your phone number if
you’re willing to do an interview.
When it comes to budget gaps, Texas is just like much of the rest of the
country. This year, the state faced a projected budget shortfall
totaling as much as $27 billion; the legislature also had to contend
with a $4.3 billion deficit in its current budget. The state made
massive across-the-board cuts to state agencies — including $4 billion
in public school cuts over two years. Perry and the state legislature
also ended up closing out funding for pre-kindergarten programs for
roughly 100,000 low-income children. Mass layoffs of public sector
workers is expected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/0 … 17460.html
The articles names some states with lower employment than Texas, but
just about all those states have a net outbound migration – unlike Texas
which has a high volume of inbound people. So those states have lower
unemployment because people gave up on finding a job there. What a
load!!!
http://simplydoit.net/tag/usa-migration-patterns/
HuffPo is just trying to smear Texas and Perry. Why is it that libtards
keep getting away with this BS. How can we publicize this and expose
them?

More Big Brother potential.
Tests can show drug, tobacco, and alcohol use.
http://www.pddnet.com/video-cnn-fingerprint-drug-tests-081111/?et_cid=1932544&et_rid=45603233&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pddnet.com%2fvideo-cnn-fingerprint-drug-tests-081111%2f

MrX says:
August 13, 2011 at 9:11 pm
“Also, his faucet and sink analogy is flawed. The obstacle to the drain works with the sink because the output path is independent from the input path. With the atmosphere, the obstacle would block both incoming and outgoing energy. I know he’s talking about CO2 blocking infrared and not sunlight. But this won’t be true of all greenhouse gases.”
Actually it is true of all greenhouse gases. It’s the very property that makes them a greenhouse gas.

“HuffPo is just trying to smear Texas and Perry. Why is it that libtards
keep getting away with this BS. How can we publicize this and expose
them?”
Compare Texas to Illinois. Obama might not have much track record but what he does have is in Chicago, Illinois.

Also, the cost-of-living adjusted median income is fairly high for Texas. This shows the lie being promulgated by HuffPo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Smokey, 13/08@11.18:
Enough of your Oz bashing. You think , down under, we don’t have our feet on the ground? Well many of us certainly do not have our heads in the clouds.EMPIRIC data supporting this claim… July Galaxy Poll, 60% of Australians disapprove a Carbon Tax, only 29% approve. More EMPIRIC data… calibre of OZ posters here, ‘Bulldust coiner of ‘Climategate’ posted this historic term on WUWT.
I’m warning you, Smokey, you are on my list and I know where you live :-).

“Stop The Environment”
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/170f627ee7/stop-the-environment

Stark Dickflüssig:
With regards to cycles generally, and there are countless . . .
A two year variation in a 100 year cycles would be most acceptable in my pea brain modeling.
For example in my world . . . we have a 24 hr cycle of day/night . . . and moon cycle of, I pretty sure, 29 days (it has wax, full, wane, and new) . . . and a seasonal cycle of 365.25 days . . . which consists of spring, summer, fall and winter! And for my little pea bain model . . . it’s just the start . . . .
We live in a realm of round and round in circles we go . . . it is a reality that I recognize (and dare I say it) assume!

Jim36 commented “But the warmists keep telling us we need to make less CO2.
Why?”
They had to pick something . . . and CO2 was the scapegoat . . . .
Politicians have been banking on the gullible, pollyanna’s since the beginnings . . . .
“Read my lips . . . no new taxes”!!!
I for one can say that until the day comes that I witness a cloud floating across the sky crash and burn . . . that will be the day when I will consider AGW as a possiblity . . . . oh and maybe I will start wearing a burka so the earthquakes will cease in Turkey . . . .

DocMartyn says:August 14, 2011 at 6:04 am
O.K. Let me ask the question in a different way.
Why is the bottom of the ocean not subject to the same radiative heat trapping, coupled to CO2, that is proposed for the atmosphere?
——————————————————————
Because neither infrared (heat) nor visible light get anywhere the bottom of the ocean. IR is absorbed in the top millimeter. Seawater is most transparent to visible light of about 555 nm (blue green) and that is absorbed in about the top 10 meters. Answered a different way, there is no radiation down there.

link to a solar ponds site http://www.solarponds.com/

Sceptic or Skeptic? I’m with Fowler and can “pocket” my pride.
[b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm
By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.
[b]Roger Longstaff[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”
Wrong way round, old chap.
[b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:01 am
Roger Longstaff says:
August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”
“Wrong way round, old chap.”
Maybe I asserted a mere prejudice. Given your response, I am beginning to think that ‘sceptical’ is the accepted spelling and that ‘skeptical’ is archaic. What do you think?
[b]Roger Longstaff[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:48 am
Dear Theo,
My comment was based upon almost 60 years of living in England, and trying my best to speak the Queen’s English. The dreaded “wiki” says:
“DefinitionIn ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: ‘σκέπτομαι’ skeptomai, to think, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:
(a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
(b) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
(c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).
In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:
(a) an inquiry,
(b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
(c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
(d) the limitations of knowledge,
(e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.
However (if this is correct) the original Greek uses a “K”, so maybe the US spelling is more accurate.
But we woz ‘ere first!!
[b]Roger Knights[/b says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:57 am
Theo Goodwin says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:01 am
Roger Longstaff says:
August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”
“Wrong way round, old chap.”
Maybe I asserted a mere prejudice. Given your response, I am beginning to think that ‘sceptical’ is the accepted spelling and that ‘skeptical’ is archaic. What do you think?
Not according to Britisher Fowler’s classic Modern English Usage :
“The established pronunciation is sk-, whatever the spelling; and with the frequent modern use of septic and sepsis it is well that it should be so for fear of confusion. But to spell sc- and pronounce sk- is to put a needless difficulty in the way of the unlearned, for sce is normally pronounced se even in words where the c represents a Greek k, e.g., scene and its compounds and ascetic. America spells sk-; we might pocket our pride and copy.”
[b]ZootCadillac[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 9:51 am
Theo:
Sceptical is indeed the English spelling, as in English as written in Britain. My understanding of the American spelling is because of the very real and deliberate ‘bastardisation’ ( that’s not an insult to Americans, it’s the proper term for it ) of British English during the pioneer years of American colonisation. I’m going off the top of my head here so don’t take anything as stone cold fact but as far as I am aware most of the settlers travelling west were barely literate and in a bid to make things easier for settlers to communicate with trading posts etcetera the spelling of many words was simplified, often phonetically, just so these people could write the way it sounded. This is why letters deemed superfluous such as the U in rumour, colour etc. were simply dropped. The K in Skeptic probably came about so as not to cause confusion with the soft ‘c’.
Of course ‘sceptic or skeptic might not have been in use by the frontiersmen but it’s the way that American English ( a phrase I dislike immensely as it’s just English, incorrectly used) has developed and been used.
Etymology puts it back to the Greek sképtesthai ( consider, examine) which oddly gave rise to the Latin scepticus and had by that time come to mean ‘initial doubt’. The Greek Skep also gave rise to the English word scope.
just my thoughts.
[b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 10:08 am
ZootCadillac says:
August 13, 2011 at 9:51 am
“Of course ‘sceptic or skeptic might not have been in use by the frontiersmen but it’s the way that American English ( a phrase I dislike immensely as it’s just English, incorrectly used) has developed and been used.”
Thanks much. Actually, it was in use, most likely. They lacked polish not intelligence.

Apropos of nothing I cam across this video about the IOM TT this evening which shows clearly why it is one the last great tests of man and machine and I am afraid every year kills the people to prove it.
Never any shortage of entrants though who make the many professional eiders who refuse to ride in it, preferring those nice safe circuits, look like the wussies they are. The TT is the real thing not some televised confection adapted for the demure tastes of a modern effete risk averse society.
So enjoy here:

Kindest Regards

Roger Sowell says:August 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
@ Dan in California, re sunlight penetrating sea water.
I’ve heard or read that infra-red does not penetrate the surface, but I’m not so sure about that. It that were true, then how does a solar pond accumulate heat at the bottom of the pond?
—————————————————————–
This is a perfect example of the greenhouse effect. Most solar power (daytime incoming) is in the visible range that *does* get to the bottom of shallow swimming pools (shallow compared to the oceans). Heats the water and the tiles, which heat the water. IR is a small fraction of total incoming solar flux, and is absorbed in the top millimeter of water. At night, the lower black body radiation temperature from the pool (planet) is mostly IR, which is only from the top surface. Therefore the sun energy is a net heat input to the swimming pool (planet).
In a related subject, the designers of photovoltaic solar cells try really hard to capture all the visible light, because PV is a poor user of IR. It’s the big thermal solar power farms (e.g. Kramer Junction) that collect incoming radiation of all wavelengths and convert the energy to heat to run a Rankine cycle steam engine to make electricity.

UN Climate Report Fails to Capture Arctic Ice Thinning Reality: MIT
By IBTimes Staff Reporter | August 14, 2011 4:23 AM EDT
The United Nations’ most recent global climate report “fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends,” says a new research from MIT.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197495/20110814/mit-research-arctic-sea-ice-thinning-hit-new-low-u-n-arctic-predictions-inaccurate.htm

Hey, anyone looking up North at the ice cap? Seems like the WUWT entry for minimum extent prediction looks, um, a little high. Reading your posts above, people, I’d say, in fact, you all look a little high.

LazyTeenager,
Such an apt handle, rocks float, on molten rocks. Think Crust, Mantle.
Pressure , temperature. Think Diesel engine compression stroke, very hot. Switch off engine, even the compression stroke cools. Venus, Sun drives atmospheric circulation, Gravity is compression stroke, at 100bar, very hot . Switch off Sun, cools down.
Even NASA admits that atmospheric circulation on Neptune is the probable cause of anomalously high (relatively) temperatures there, not accountable by Solar radiation alone.

“Maintaining a constant high pressure in the tank will keep it warm.”
Typo. Should read:
Maintaining a constant high pressure in the tank will NOT keep it warm.

@ Timothy Hanes, and what will YOU be saying in about 10 years, after the coming cooling has taken effect? Have you noticed that the Pacific Ocean level is falling? The sea surface temperatures are falling, especially off the coast of California? Have you considered the impact of cooler temperatures on agriculture in California? Are you aware that some coastal California cities have been cooling for several years? Where are the increased hurricanes and tropical cyclones? Where are the sunspots that caused the warming over the past few decades? Why is the snow increasing, instead of disappearing as the warmistas so wrongly predicted? What will you do when the sunspots stay away for decades, and the Earth plunges into a very deep and prolonged cold period? Oh yes, it will be quite interesting to watch the warmistas, shivering in the cold.

Dave Springer says:
August 15, 2011 at 4:21 am
Julian Braggins says:
August 15, 2011 at 2:27 am
“LazyTeenager,
Such an apt handle, rocks float, on molten rocks. Think Crust, Mantle.
Pressure , temperature. Think Diesel engine compression stroke, very hot. Switch off engine, even the compression stroke cools. Venus, Sun drives atmospheric circulation, Gravity is compression stroke, at 100bar, very hot . Switch off Sun, cools down.”
———————————-
“Compressional heating of a gas only occurs as it is getting squeezed into a small volume.——”
————————–
Spare me the strawman lecture on the air pressure tank. Venus has a strong circulation, therefore pressure is not constant. Volcanic heat augments this. Chinook, Foehn, Mistral etc. winds do not finish in a closed container do they ?

Another “Green Failure” and this one only took a year:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127844048.html
Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare.
McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.
But more than a year later, Seattle’s numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.
…