I’ll be offline most of this weekend, as I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST “PR before peer review shenanigans” and the compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.
Discuss topics on science, weather climate, etc here quietly amongst yourselves. don’t make me come back here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Over at Climate Etc. P.E. | October 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm | linked to this video. Many here will accept that acceleration & deceleration alter perception in that context. Earth samples temporally nonstationary solar cycles quasi-discretely via summers of opposite poles & hemispheres. Are participants willing to recognize aliasing in the latter context [ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn4.png ]? The spatial aggregation kernel in that context is asymmetric (distribution of continents) & nonlinear [T(K)^4, ocean-continent contrast, thermal wind] and thus subject to differential leverage (spatiotemporal version of Simpson’s Paradox). Rough sketch volunteered here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/15/shifting-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases/ . Acceleration & deceleration of the solar drive-wheel is modulating the fractal dimension of northern hemisphere westerly flow (& thus diurnal venting). This multidecadal variation rides on top of global climate changes manifested as latitudinal jet shifts that I speculate relate to the integral of solar activity (one clue being 30S-90S SST, which falls in the band where fractal dimension is much closer to 1 due to the circumpolar Southern Ocean, which is relatively free of deflecting obstacles & zonally differentially-leveraging physical contrasts). Please take some time to think about this carefully.
“The tests were attempted to demonstrate atomic bombs as a means for large excavations. Very effective with the exception of the radioactive material left behind which would preclude human use for several thousand years. Dang.”
It’s called advance planning. You should see the skyscrapers they’re going to build in those holes … er, in 50,000 years.
“Just so I get this right, the US is giving up producing oil, mining minerals, manufacturing etc all to China as part of a carefully planned international diplomatic negotiations to get China to reduce its CO2 emissions?”
Yes, ’cause if they have all of those fossil fuels, they won’t use them (???) so their CO2 emissions will go down. And in case the implications to national security of our appearing to surrender oil and mineral extraction to other countries including China have occurred to you, don’t worry: it’s all part of an elaborate plot to lull our enemies into a false sense of security …
Sorry – broken link. This was the Climate Etc. thread I was linking to:
Does the Aliasing Beast Feed the Uncertainty Monster?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/18/does-the-aliasing-beast-feed-the-uncertainty-monster/
OccupyWallStreet crowd starts to develop capitalism.
“So, the Working Groups want to keep more of the money they’ve earned, rather than turn it over to a central authority. Imagine that!”
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/10/23/occupyanimalfarm-fights-over-money-splintering-occupywallst/
John B
Since Arctic is just as “warm” as it was 70 years ago, Arctic ice was probably the same.
http://oi56.tinypic.com/vfv70g.jpg
Wanking on that trivial post-1990 trend will change nothing on facts that the allegedly most sensitive (polar) areas show just cyclic ups and downs related to AMO (Arctic) or nothing at all, even cooling (Antarctic).
Just wondering if you were quoted correctly relating to the BEST results?
At least one of those skeptics, Anthony Watts, had written in March on his climate-themed blog, Watts Up With That, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.”
Lucy Skywalker: “I’ve written primarily from my own internalized understanding of Climate Science as a whole, though the references and leads to peer-reviewed material are there too.”
Well, we all have our own “internalized understanding” of climate science, or any other items of knowledge for that matter. The issue, Lucy, is the justification for one’s knowledge.
By implication, you are claiming that your own understanding of climate is superior to that of the scientists who have spent their working lives studying the subject, and you claim a “higher authority”: “Nullius in verba”, “take nobody’s word for it”.
But of course the motto also applies to you, in which case your higher authority is moot.
In that case, you still need to supply a justification that supports your claim that you have discovered a “wholistic understanding that’s missing” from climate science. What is your justification for your claimed superior understanding?
RGates
‘We need to go back to the mid-Pliocence for this, about 3.3 Million years ago. Looking at this era, we see that global temps were around 3C to 4.5C warmer…which correlates closely with what global climate models are saying. ‘
________________________________________
Ah, yes, the Pliocene Canard.
Do your precious ‘global climate models’ include the Strait of Panama?
When it closed off world temperatures plummeted,
with CO2 levels dropping thereafter
(plants have been in mourning until now).
If CO2 was the almighty warming-engine of alarmist delusions,
then the mountains of Panama wouldn’t have changed a thing.
Also, you forgot negative feedbacks, the bane of alarmists.
The world will probably only warm a nearly unmeasurable 0.5 C,
mostly on cold winter nights.
LazyTeenager says:
October 23, 2011 at 6:37 am
Andrew Harding said
Is this the same sort of diplomacy we had in the 1980′s when al the western world’s socialists were telling us to give up our nuclear weapons because if we did, Russia would do the same? Reagan and Thatcher did the opposite and the world is a safer place as a result.
———
Your recollection seems to be different from mine. There was an escalation in research into defensive technologies. I don’t believe there was an escalation in the nuclear weapons stockpiles. There were likely existing nuclear nonproliferation treaties in place. Could be wrong maybe I should check the timeline
Here in UK in the early 80’s we had Michael Foot as leader of the Labour Party, the policy was to scrap all nuclear weapons. Reagan in the US was looking at Star Wars technology, using satellites with lasers to track and destroy USSR missiles. Maragret Thatcher came to power in 1979 and strengthened our armed forces and bought Poseidon from the US to replace the ageing Polaris submarine fleet. The USSR whose defence budget was huge could not afford to compete and the Russian empire collapsed, culminating in the reunion of East & West Germany with the destruction of the Berlin Wall.
This is my recollection of events but I too could be wrong.
Otter17 hope your knee gets better but at least your typing skills have!!
John B has his usual baseless opinion, while I provide literally hundreds of charts and graphs showing CO2=CAGW to be utter nonsense, and Lucy Skywalker maintains a huge site resource that completely debunks the false alarmists’ ridiculous narrative.
Who should we believe, alarmists lying for money, or the planet itself? Planet Earth doesn’t lie, while the alarmist crowd constantly does.
Wake me when the climate null hypothesis is falsified. Until then, CAGW is all smoke and mirrors.
@jesse, my fault – troposphere is correct.
If there is the same physics on Mars, we would see the pure greenhouse effect caused by 6,000 ppm of CO2 in its atmosphere warming the surface. There is nothing.
If CO2 is the reason of warming here, we would see its pronounced effect in Antarctic, where cold air holds almost no water vapor and CO2 creates relative portion of so called “greenhouse effect”. There is nothing observed like this.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
If CO2 has warmed Arctic, temperature could not be on the 1940s level, never.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MAAT%2070-90N%20HadCRUT3%20Since1900.gif
Arctic is governed by North Atlantic oscillations, which is finally admitted even in BEST – “err the human fingerprint in recent warming somewhat overstated”.
Incorrectly assigning wrongly calculated 33K effect to only back-radiation is just nonsense. Simple heat retention of atmosphere and oceans can not be ignored. This is a main mistake of the whole radiative pseudoscience and does not matter how thick arrow has Trenberth painted in his funkey school diagrams.
Max Hugoson says:
October 23, 2011 at 11:32 am
“…. (And the fact that, NO, not all of said far IR is contained in this system.)
Now, since I’ve given you the PRECISE DETAILS TO SHOW THAT THIS DEMONSTRATION IS MEANINGLESS…what part of “intellectual dishonesty” do you file this under? Not QUITE as deliberately devious as Al Gore’s demo, but really on the same level.
Better luck next time. FAIL.”
__________________
First off, you could be far more cordial to me in your correspondence and point me towards your potential corrections. I presented that video as a demonstration, in line with the discussion I was having with Latitude and others on a CO2 analogy. I realize that it is a visualization of the greenhouse effect and not necessarily an experiment to prove every detail of the greenhouse effect. If you think it is intellectually dishonest, take that up with Iain Stewart or the BBC, those who published “Earth: A Biography”.
Aside from all that, Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius laid the groundwork for the greenhouse effect in the 1800’s. Yes, re-radiation is something that has been known to physics for some time, and not all that is re-radiated comes back to Earth (though of course some does). Check out this peer-reviewed paper (abstract) from “Geophysical Research Letters”. It shows that these Swiss scientists were able to measure an increased amount of radiation coming back to Earth, corroborating the greenhouse effect.
Oops, forgot to put in my link in the last post.
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
TimC says:
October 23, 2011 at 6:33 am
Actually there are now some encouraging signs, at least in England and the UK. It’s becoming blindingly obvious to all (even to “null points” Huhne) that UK feed-in tariffs are having the most appalling effect on UK energy price inflation and fuel poverty. This might at last give our crazed politicians pause for thought.
The BBC said today Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is not all that far from being in fuel poverty!
@frank Kotler
Wanna buy a nuclear waste repository?
Actually I don’t want the repository, I want to buy what you would refer to as ‘waste’.
Kev-in-Uk says:
October 23, 2011 at 10:54 am
“As for the r’equirement’ for peer reviewed references – I’d ask the doubters to comment on how many NON peer reviewed stuff was included in IPCC’s AR4 !!! ”
Yes, many understand that the IPCC AR4 has some non peer reviewed material in it. Nevertheless, the majority of the information is peer reviewed and that material which is not peer reviewed is generally mulled over carefully by a team of expert authors. Were there a few bad references in AR4? Yes. I believe many were rightly identified and are to be kept out of the next report. Working Group One, the section of AR4 that covered the science behind climate change I believe had a quite high percentage of peer reviewed material.
One must realize that the IPCC AR4 represents probably the most comprehensive “cream of the crop” collection of scientific knowledge on climate change compiled in one place. Here, for fun, take a look at the references for the scientific basis section of AR4. Click on any one of those chapters (1 through 11) and then click on the References. There are a LOT of good peer reviewed papers and results.
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
I am not saying that the IPCC AR4 is infallible, but it represents a culmination of sorts in the scientific process.
For those who’d like to read a very interesting scientific paper on ice sheets, Milankovitch cycles, CO2, and feedbacks versus forcings, I’d highly recommend this:
http://www.clim-past.net/2/43/2006/cp-2-43-2006.pdf
Really gets into the nitty-gritty as to why CO2, glacial, and interglacial cycles are so closely (though not precisely) in sync. There is something here for skeptic and warmist alike. Get a big bowl of popcorn for this one, and there’s lots to chew on here…
John B says:
October 23, 2011 at 10:31 am
“That’s about right. But the reason you will never see a fully peer-review supported “skeptic” site is that the peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports the mainstream view. Hence, “skeptics” invoke conspiracy theories and talk about “pal review”, except when applied to the handful of papers that support their personal views, in which case peer review is taken to mean that those papers are unassailable.”
=======
Ya coulda just said this.
“The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy. ”
—H.L. Mencken
And been just as mistaken.
Jesse Fell says:
October 23, 2011 at 12:58 am
“The effect of water vapor is far less problematic. It is a potent greenhouse gas that will lead to further warming, which will enable the atmosphere to hold more moisture which will lead to further warming . .. and so on.”
More moisture equals more rain equals more snow on mountains equals advancing glaciers – little ice age? – big ice age?
Smokey says:
October 23, 2011 at 12:53 pm
John B has his usual baseless opinion, while I provide literally hundreds of charts and graphs showing CO2=CAGW to be utter nonsense, and Lucy Skywalker maintains a huge site resource that completely debunks the false alarmists’ ridiculous narrative.
Who should we believe, alarmists lying for money, or the planet itself? Planet Earth doesn’t lie, while the alarmist crowd constantly does.
Wake me when the climate null hypothesis is falsified. Until then, CAGW is all smoke and mirrors.
—————-
Yes Smokey, you do indeed have a very large bowl of cherries, but cherries they remain. If you think you’ve really got something, do some real work and write a paper. I don’t need to do likewise because I am happy that the scientists who have devoted their lives to working on this stuff have done and continue to do a fine job. And those scientists largely agree that the null hypothesis has been falsified, as summarised in IPCC AR4, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”. Does that make me a “true believer”? No, just not a conspiracy theorist.
Politicians, I’m not so sure about…
Billy Liar,
I some places where it is still cold enough to snow, increased moisture will in fact lead to more snowfall. Snowfall is accumulating in the interior of Greenland, for example. But, at the same time, Greenland is losing ice around its edges.
jurajV, I would imagine that even though the atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, there isn’t much greenhouse effect because there isn’t much atmosphere. The surface pressure of the Martian atmosphere is about 1% of what it is on Earth.
Just to drive a stake through the heart of the believe in an ever ongoing increase in downwelling LWIR radiation, and the resulting, inevitable positive water vapour feedback –
Measurements of Long wave infrared backradiation show a decline over 12 years in the Great Plains.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/04/another-blow-to-warmist-theory.html
The problem is, you see, that cloudiness is not unaffected by the increase in water vapour content. Or in other words, matters get slightly more complicated when you consider that water does change its state while in the atmosphere.
See also
http://204.38.191.104/robinson/9cl1.htm
“Sequential water vapor images viewed in rapid succession to detect motion show water vapor transported horizontally as huge swirling plumes, often originating in the tropics and moving into higher latitudes.
A typical water vapor plume is thousands of kilometers long and several hundred kilometers wide.
Plumes supply moisture to hurricanes, clusters of thunderstorms, and winter storms.
In spring and summer, such water vapor plumes have been associated with exceptionally heavy rain and flash floods.”
I’ve seen a number of blogs that have shown how data adjustments have resulted in higher temperatures at some locations. Has Mueller addressed these instances?
This morning,BBC World Report[?] covered Italian plans to place a reflective sheet on the Marmolada glacier, during the warm season. This geo-engineering effort will retard Global Warming-induced melting, protecting and preserving ski-tourism income.
I have been unable to find other coverage; is it a useful idea?
You’re simply the BEST – cobbled from all the rest
Better than GISS – or even the British Met
I’m stuck on your heat, I hang on every word you say
Urban heat island, no baby, no f**kin way!
(With apologies to Tina Turner)