I’m taking the rest of the weekend off – for two reasons:
1. With 100million views under my belt, I’ve earned it.
2. I’m rebuilding my home personal computer as it is becoming flakey, and such things take three times as long as you figure. Windows doesn’t take well to new mobos, and backup/prep must be done. So I’ll be down anyway.
Talk quietly amongst yourselves on any topic within site policy – don’t make me come back here until late Sunday night whenI start my regular work week. 😉 – Anthony
UPDATE: Sunday AM – My computer rebuild went well, and I learned some valuable things that I’ll share in an upcoming post. I went from an old AMDx2 64 dual core to a Intel I5 quad core CPU, doubled my memory speed, doubled my video card speed, and went from a SATA2 to SATA3 SSD. I can blog even faster now. Speaking of which, my email load this morning contained two stories (one quite dramatic) that I’ve put on auto-scheduled publishing that will appear soon. I’m still taking the rest of the day off though. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good luck with the rebuild!
…and thanks for all of the effort you and the moderators put into providing this wealth of information.
yeah spell check seems on the fritz….
You sure have earned it. You should get away completely for a while and come back refreshed.
2. I’m rebuilding my home personal comouter…
Yeah, them “comouters” need rebuilding every so often, don’t they?
Anyway, take care and here’s hoping it goes well.
[Typo fixed. ~dbs]
Okay, I’m a well known warmist here on WUWT, but I’m open to learning. I’m fairly well convinced that prior to the massive influx of anthropogenic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, that solar fluctuations caused most of the short-term (i.e. non-Milankovtich) fluctuations in climate. These fluctuations can be anywhere in length from sunspot cycles to much longer Bond Event (i.e. around 1500 year) cycles. However, there does appear to be a great divergence in correlation in the later part of the 20th century (after about 1980) between solar activity ( as measured any number of ways) and global temperatures. How do skeptics to AGW explain this?
and crack open a bottle of champagne!
5 Jan: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Still Searching for Republicans With Climate Concerns
The Climate Desk, a collaborative journalism project of Mother Jones and several other publications, has produced a video searching in vain for a Republican presidential candidate willing to make any science-based statements on climate…
Toward the end of the video you hear from a truly rare species, a New Hampshire conservative who sees climate change as important.
Then comes Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who’s been studying possible impacts of greenhouse warming on tropical storms for decades – and who has lately been vocal about his longtime affiliation with the Republican Party.
“Responsibility is a big Republican theme,” Emanuel says. “Why should they not take responsibility for what we collectively are doing to the climate system?”
Oddly, the marching orders for Republican presidential candidates appear to be out of sync with attitudes of most members of their party, outside a small fringe that is obstructionist on anything smacking of an energy policy. This makes the field of candidates deserving of the 2011 Climate B.S. Award (B.S. for “bad science”) that they received today from the environmental analyst and blogger Peter Gleick….
Perhaps once the silly season is over, and the surviving candidate starts seeking broader support, climate-smart energy policies could be mentionable once more. Until then there remains a “fundamental Republican science problem.”.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/still-searching-for-republicans-with-climate-concerns/
dear Andrew, your headline proves u r a fool.
go talk to the Conservative governments running all but a handful of European countries, where CAGW is the Gospel Truth, and where mention of Climategate is taboo, and then re-write your piece. if you bothered to check, Andrew, you might even find that some Liberals, once associated with Mother Jones, including some prominent ones i could name, are now sceptics.
That’s it then?
100m hits and the man gets complacent 🙂
Well done Anthony! Have a very good weekend best wishes to you and yours.
“How do skeptics to AGW explain this?”
As usual by following the money, here in the UK the govt now raise more than £40b a year in environmental taxes – fair enough you would say, its saving the planet
Problem is its all stick and no carrot, they are taking the money but not doing anything to guarantee a reduction in emissions
Gates: Worthwhile question, but, as always, one should examine the premise before answering. So, question to you: Can you provide useful references to credible efforts to show this “divergence” that we can reasonably conclude are not likely to be infected a bias to show that such a divergence is real?
I’m sorry to say, but based on ClimateGate1 and 2, I am now unwilling to believe the scientific research published by most of the “Hockey Stick” team. We really need to look at research from sources not infected with their lack of credibility.
R. Gates writes “temperatures. How do skeptics to AGW explain this?”
I can only speak for myself. There are an enormous number of ways in which the earth’s climate and weather change. I am sure there are more unknowns than knowns. So who knows what is causing what. The only thing we can be really sure of, is that whenever we look for a CO2 signal among the temperature records, we cannot find one.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 11:52 am
Okay, I’m a well known warmist here on WUWT, but I’m open to learning. I’m fairly well convinced that prior to the massive influx of anthropogenic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, that solar fluctuations caused most of the short-term (i.e. non-Milankovtich) fluctuations in climate. These fluctuations can be anywhere in length from sunspot cycles to much longer Bond Event (i.e. around 1500 year) cycles. However, there does appear to be a great divergence in correlation in the later part of the 20th century (after about 1980) between solar activity ( as measured any number of ways) and global temperatures. How do skeptics to AGW explain this?
As an AGW skeptic I don’t claim to know exactly how to explain warming or cooling. As someone who believes in a large amount of AGW, how do you explain the lack of warming in the last decade?
No thread so insignificant that Gates won’t try to hijack it. Gotta get my exclude Gates code working again.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 11:52 am
“However, there does appear to be a great divergence in correlation in the later part of the 20th century (after about 1980) between solar activity ( as measured any number of ways) and global temperatures. How do skeptics to AGW explain this?”
Hansen’s red crayon; and his meddling with pre-Satellite recordings suffice entirely to explain the fabricated trends worshipped by the CAGW church. I don’t know how often we have seen that rural non-airport stations show no warming trend or even a cooling trend. I don’t know how often we have heard how Europe- and US centric the historic thermometer readings are.
And you still think there is a real divergence? That means you still think that the GISS and CRU temp histories for the 20th centuries are valid? What was the average global temp anomaly in 1900? Notice I said GLOBAL and AVERAGE.
The answer is: Nobody knows.
DonS says:
January 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm
“No thread so insignificant that Gates won’t try to hijack it.”
If open threads are insignificant to you, why do you read it?
And: Open threads cannot be hijacked by definition.
Hi R Gates
For me as a very skeptical “computer scientist” with 1960’s University Geology also under my belt, it is not that there appears to be an AGW component or not, but rather the “magnitude”.
It is alos the conduct of the “messengers” that has so tainted the “magnitude” so as to render them incompetent in my eyes.
Also I would ask, why does 1 degree warming from around 1900 to say 1950 when CO2 emissions were relatively low seem “natural” and 1 degree warming ever since when emissions are alegedly “catastrophic” seem abnormal?
It’s also a real shame that since around 1998 despite all the CO2 around, temperatures have refused to budge and some “messengers” even predict a 20-year cooling period.
Given all that, how is a mere mortal (an educated one none-the-less) to decide?
Happy New Year one and all
Andy
Jim:
There is one signal that stands out repeatedly. At the end of each interglacial, co2 keeps rising and temps fall. There has been no variation in that theme that I have as of yet found.
The above is not saying that co2 doesn’t retain heat, it is saying that co2 is not the “driver” of climate that some would believe.
Congratulations, Anthony on your 100 million views. Enjoy your weekend off.
In your surface staions project, you brought out major problems with temperature measurements in the US. I do not understand why so much time is spent trying to get something out of data of questionable accuracy. On your site, you advertise a USB-1 Data Logger, which can measure and record temperature for about $60. Why not put out an array of these data loggers, installed in appropriate “boxes” in high quality locations near existing stations to get an idea of the quality of the data coming from the official station? This does not seem too difficult or expensive to do. Possibly this could be a volunteer effort similar to the surface stations project.
In response to R. Gates…
In engineering, we sometimes use a statistical methodology known as design of experiments (DOE), which is used to ascertain the interaction between primary and secondary factors. It’s been a couple decades since I took the course but as I recall, the technique can only consider a couple interactions.
The Earth’s temperature (if there is such a thing) is dependent upon far more than just the amount of radiant energy coming from the sun and reradiating back to space. All of the heat that ends up being absorbed in the “System” is subsequently transferred to other parts of the “System” through a variety of convective processes in both the atmosphere and the oceans. For example, in the atmosphere we have the Jet Stream, trade winds, Arctic Oscillation, and who knows how many other processes. Similarly, in the Oceans there are ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream and the Japanese Current, short-term events such as the ENSO cycles, and long-term decadal events such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Every one of these factors, and others like them, vary in location and intensity, but it is their combined interaction that determines the global climate. Yet statistical tools like DOE are incapable of considering interactions between so many stochastic processes. In my opinion, that is exactly why climate models are bogus.
History has shown us that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation plays a big role in climate. I would put my money on that factor combined with other convective processes as being responsible for any perceived warming over the past thirty years… or should I say the warming period from the late 70’s to the late 90’s since temperature increases have been largely flat since then…
Congratulations Anthony. There’s a bottle of decent Bubbly in the tip jar for you.
Do we know that this is a unique event? When people point to what they think is the fly in the ointment, the first question I ask is, how do you know? Was the LIA just a solar event? Was the MWP jst a solar event. If you can prove that those two were truly solar and solar alone, then I’ll worry more about the explanation. However, You seem to think you are all by yourself here. I believe that CO2 has some impact on earth temperature. I’ll be darned if I can say how much.
However, it does seem to me that in arguing about technical/scientific details on this site, we often lose track of more important questions.
1) There is a well established reason why CO2 should impact climate. What else might too?
2) In the presence of feedback of many kinds, what is the ultimate impact of doubling CO2?
——end of technical questions——–
3)Will the impact be beneficial or not?
4)Is there any real alternative to just business as usual?
5)Will trying to change from business as usual lead to unacceptable social/political impacts?
6)Does Kyoto amount to more than a hill of beans?
7)Is it cheaper and more sensible to mitigate the impact of climate change rather than try to prevent it?
-Early reference to climate change.. in 1955 in the movie “The Man with the Golden Arm”
I was watching a streaming movie last night and caught a Sinatra movie (not bad) …In the movie a character named Sparrow (Armold Stang) says something to the effect that he’d sit there and wait for the “climate to change”. I was preoccupied and only half watching the movie so I missed the reference… I could not find a clip.
Anyone know of it?
Congratulations on the 100 million mark. Bet the next 100 million doesn’t take nearly so long!!
UN said: have a nice time.
If you recall anything about that course it would probably be the “Table of Contrasts”. In a paper I gave at a conference ten years ago, I suggested putting together a Table of Contrasts for “natural experiments” of which climate change is sure one. DOE can handle many sorts of interactions and factors, and so this seems like a reasonable approach. Itemize as many factors as one cares to, build a table of contrasts, and then go back into history and fill out the factors in each climate change plus the result.
I suspect that what will happen is that we have trouble identifying the factors with the needed precision, and in addition there won’t be enough data. But it seems like a reasonable thing to try.