PaulH @ur momisugly 11.22:
I can remember climbing a radio tower on top of a mountain in a blizzard!!! I’ve a photograph of self holding a large icicle. It was a very long time ago and I doubt I could be persuaded to do that ever again.
meemoe_uk says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:51 am
“Is AGW financed covertly by international bankers?”
No, it’s financed candidly by international bankers. Each and everyone of them loved the idea of taxing the air and making fortunes with carbon credits.
michael hart says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:20 am
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead,
I hope you’re not suggesting that people go off to “real-you-know-what” for entertainment while Anthony is away from the office?
🙂
One mustn’t troll when the lake dries up. Real-I-know-what? Nahhh. Gr*st. Much more entertaining. As long as you bring a barf bag for the turbulent bits. Notice that I refrain, with nostrils elevated, from using ‘leet’ in my post. Only a humble asterisk to aid in getting by the ever-vigilant censors.
[Reply: WUWT only deletes or snips comments that violate site policy. But I’ll bet you already knew that. ~dbs, mod.]
adolfogiurfa
January 28, 2012 12:26 pm
@Anthony Watts says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:35 am
Remarkable!, so, according to Scott Rasmussen’s you are to blame for killing “Climate Change”!
Wow!. Congratulations! May “Climate Change” rest in peace….along with “Ponzi Scheme” and other inventions of those who profit from “pouring the empty into the void”.
Judy F.
January 28, 2012 12:38 pm
@grzejnik
I can’t give you an in depth critique about the new USDA hardiness zones, but it does concern me. I think that climate is cyclical, and whereas we had more warm, now we will probably have more cold. Plants can generally adapt down the hardiness zones, but usually can’t move up easily. Plants and trees are long lived, and it would be sad to lose a whole “generation” of trees based on not understanding natural cycles. The following article pre-dates the new USDA chart. If the cycle does get colder, the city planners are going to regret not planting oaks in favor of more southern trees. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?pagewanted=all
Whether or not a plant will even live is only one consideration using the Hardiness Zone map. The following article brings up some points about leaf budding and leaf drop times, as well as flowering times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?pagewanted=all
The longer leaves stay on trees in the fall leads to the kind of damage that happened in October on the Front Range of Colorado, especially in Fort Collins. I saw that damage first hand and it was incredible. http://tri1025.com/city-of-fort-collins-tree-limb-clean-up-schedule/
From what I have read, the zones changed about 5 degrees F or about 1/2 a zone on the previous chart. I had trouble keeping things alive using the old zone map guidelines (mostly because of our lack of humidity with winter temperatures). I am wary of the new map.
Dr. Dave
January 28, 2012 12:54 pm
Congrats Anthony. Very high praise from Dr. Michaels (one of my heroes). Now tell us what you’re doing up on the tower. Something fun like new ham radio beam antennas or something more work-related like radar receiving equipment?
Gary
January 28, 2012 1:04 pm
@ur momisugly Lucy Skywalker – January 28, 2012 at 10:14 am
Setting Feral Cats Among Pigeons
Not quite sure of everything you mean, but the Scientific Method (hypothesize – test – conclude – repeat) certainly is a good habit for the mind to learn. And tempered with civility, as you imply, it goes a long way to make us good citizens. Throw in a little artistry and we become a charming people.
Sparks
January 28, 2012 1:09 pm
@Clive Best
It looks good! very handy.
William
January 28, 2012 1:13 pm
In reply to Naomi Oreske’s polemic in the LA Times
Naomi: “Yet many Americans cling to the idea that it is reasonable to maintain an open mind. It isn’t, at least not to scientists who study the matter. They have been saying for some time that the case for the reality and gravity of climate change has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But there’s the rub. The public seems to view scientists as the equivalent of the prosecuting attorney trying to prove a case. The think tanks, institutes and fossil fuel corporations take on the mantle of the defense.”
You are on the wrong side of the climate change debate.
Global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet less than 1C, as planetary clouds in the tropics increase and decrease to resist forcing change. Most of the warming will occur at high latitudes increasing the growing season and the biosphere.
Plants eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to reduce growing times and to increase yield. C3 plants (all broad leaf type plants) loss roughly 50% of the water to transrespiration. When atmospheric CO2 increase C3 plants reduce the number of stomata and hence can make more effective use of water. Plants are moving into arid, desert regions due to the reduction in transrespiration. There is a reduction in desertification.
Unfortunately, if the past is a guide to the future the planet is about to abruptly cool. The biosphere shrinks when the planet cools.
There are cycles of warming in cooling the paleorecord. See figure 3 which an excerpt from Richard Alley’s paper on the Greenland Ice sheet cores. http://www.climate4you.com/ http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
“Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time, which is shown at the right hand side of the diagram. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1855, and the red dotted line indicate the approximate temperature increase since then. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.”
The solar cycle has been interrupted. If the past is a guide to the future the arctic will cool. http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
“Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10-12 years.
The relations between the length of a solar cycle and the mean temperature in the following cycle, is used to model Svalbard annual mean temperature, and seasonal temperature variations. Residuals from the annual and winter models show no autocorrelations on the 5 per cent level, which indicates that no additional parameters are needed to explain the temperature variations with 95 per cent significance. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations.”
“These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5\pm2 oC from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009-20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of \approx6 oC.”
Camburn
January 28, 2012 1:24 pm
William:
Come now my good man. I am not looking forward to colder temps.
Please post something credible that shows we are going to at least maintain or increase global temps by a degree C or so. I want to bask in the radiant glow of warmth.
u.k.(us)
January 28, 2012 1:26 pm
Anthony Watts says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:35 am
“Back down for lunch and a break.”
============
It is not nice to torment your faithful readership like this 🙂
Dave
January 28, 2012 1:26 pm
Congrats Anthony,
That’s quite an acknowledgement in Forbes! I’d say that it puts into perspective the “science communications award” that Gavin Schmidt won…
Lucy, thanks for your comments and i like very much how you reflect over “what is real science” etc.
I think personally that we need BOTH types that can break walls ahout out, and then types that can refine things. Both “types” may have a tendency to critisize each other without realising the importance of both.
btw:
Monster Cold formation coming to Scandinavia like shot out of a Canon from East: http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/monster2012.gif
The Scandinavian weather blogs.debates have started guessing what minimum temperatures will be… any guesses for an area?
K.R. Frank
Joachim Seifert
January 28, 2012 1:36 pm
Most important is the present post: “Giant veil of cold plasma discovered high above Earth”
it shown, how atmosphere gets away from Earth and then by the sunlight decomposed,
both water vapour and N2/ O2 ……
THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE SUBTRACTED from global warming calculations…. this is
clear: one cannot only add heat from CO2 and forget heat/air loss at the top of the
atmosphere……
Since the atmosphere does not expand in volume…..therefore….the same volume, as
added with CO2 for example, should be subtracted from the top of the atmosphere….
since this plasma-cloud does not grow, therefore it gets lost as a trail behind Earth…
Who can answer whether atmospheric losses in space are taken into account in
IPCC GMC-circulation models…….?
JS
DirkH
January 28, 2012 1:40 pm
William says:
January 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm
“In reply to Naomi Oreske’s polemic in the LA Times
[…]
You are on the wrong side of the climate change debate. ”
Don’t be silly. She studied English and Philosophy but dropped out without a degree. She probably doesn’t even know how a linear trend is computed.
grzejnik
January 28, 2012 1:42 pm
Thanks Judy, I’m very familiar with plants and how they are zone this or that, the map just takes the coldest night per year and averages that. But the plants, or how they define the zone is not whats new, but he algorithm that figures out the temperatures between the official stations. Its very central to what Anthony does with the weather stations. I think despite headlines that the map is pro AGW, I doubt that very much but it is a new way to record the temps and it seems really cool. But duration of cold and growing degree days (GDD) are really what limits plants, not just the one time low temps 🙂
DirkH
January 28, 2012 1:42 pm
DirkH says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“Don’t be silly. She studied English and Philosophy but dropped out without a degree. She probably doesn’t even know how a linear trend is computed.”
Oh sorry. Confused it with Naomi Klein.
And Judy the last map 1990 used 1974 to 1986, this new map is 1976-2005. I think the important thing would be to include at least 1 full cycle as you point out, but it would be better with 2 cycles! So you get an accurate average.
Anthony Watts says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:35 am
Back down for lunch and a break.
Here’s something of interest: http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/01/27/watts-up-who-killed-climated-change/
————-
Anthony. To paraphrase a famous political debate line… You sir are no Al Gore! Your humility about your accomplishments is breathtaking! From that article:
“But the sense of free inquiry and thought Watts has fostered on his site has shamed the climate apocalypse machine into inconsequence. David whupped Goliath, one of the most amazing achievements in the history of science communication.”
Indeed!
cwj
January 28, 2012 2:12 pm
climbing radio station tower
an I go too???? Please????
Robert of Ottawa
January 28, 2012 2:25 pm
Climbing radio towers?
Could be a new X-treme sport; do you base-jump from them?
Or are you Radio-Man! tara!! Who, in his electromagnetic lair, is ever alert to signs of scientists going bad.
Perhaps Watt you really need is mountains; or is that mountain-envy?
Robert of Ottawa
January 28, 2012 2:28 pm
I hope it’s turned of while you climb, or do you wear a super-conductive Electro-Man suite? If not, you may be unintendedly “grounded”.
PaulH @ur momisugly 11.22:
I can remember climbing a radio tower on top of a mountain in a blizzard!!! I’ve a photograph of self holding a large icicle. It was a very long time ago and I doubt I could be persuaded to do that ever again.
Brent Hargreaves says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:26 am
but you have the barefaced cheek to add: “© m.a. vukcevic”.
Hi Brent
Being preoccupied with graphic work I forgot that it was there, so since you found it objectionable I have removed it.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CHshow.htm
Most of my web pages containing any graphics are done on a template, and “© m.a. vukcevic” is part of it,
Here are some examples: here and here and
here and
here etc., etc.
Your criticism is out of place, it is wise not to assume the worst at first instance but as it happens I have a bit more to do with that cartoon than it is known.
My sincere apologies to Josh.
meemoe_uk says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:51 am
“Is AGW financed covertly by international bankers?”
No, it’s financed candidly by international bankers. Each and everyone of them loved the idea of taxing the air and making fortunes with carbon credits.
michael hart says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:20 am
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead,
I hope you’re not suggesting that people go off to “real-you-know-what” for entertainment while Anthony is away from the office?
🙂
One mustn’t troll when the lake dries up. Real-I-know-what? Nahhh. Gr*st. Much more entertaining. As long as you bring a barf bag for the turbulent bits. Notice that I refrain, with nostrils elevated, from using ‘leet’ in my post. Only a humble asterisk to aid in getting by the ever-vigilant censors.
[Reply: WUWT only deletes or snips comments that violate site policy. But I’ll bet you already knew that. ~dbs, mod.]
@Anthony Watts says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:35 am
Remarkable!, so, according to Scott Rasmussen’s you are to blame for killing “Climate Change”!
Wow!. Congratulations! May “Climate Change” rest in peace….along with “Ponzi Scheme” and other inventions of those who profit from “pouring the empty into the void”.
@grzejnik
I can’t give you an in depth critique about the new USDA hardiness zones, but it does concern me. I think that climate is cyclical, and whereas we had more warm, now we will probably have more cold. Plants can generally adapt down the hardiness zones, but usually can’t move up easily. Plants and trees are long lived, and it would be sad to lose a whole “generation” of trees based on not understanding natural cycles. The following article pre-dates the new USDA chart. If the cycle does get colder, the city planners are going to regret not planting oaks in favor of more southern trees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?pagewanted=all
Whether or not a plant will even live is only one consideration using the Hardiness Zone map. The following article brings up some points about leaf budding and leaf drop times, as well as flowering times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?pagewanted=all
The longer leaves stay on trees in the fall leads to the kind of damage that happened in October on the Front Range of Colorado, especially in Fort Collins. I saw that damage first hand and it was incredible.
http://tri1025.com/city-of-fort-collins-tree-limb-clean-up-schedule/
From what I have read, the zones changed about 5 degrees F or about 1/2 a zone on the previous chart. I had trouble keeping things alive using the old zone map guidelines (mostly because of our lack of humidity with winter temperatures). I am wary of the new map.
Congrats Anthony. Very high praise from Dr. Michaels (one of my heroes). Now tell us what you’re doing up on the tower. Something fun like new ham radio beam antennas or something more work-related like radar receiving equipment?
@ur momisugly Lucy Skywalker – January 28, 2012 at 10:14 am
Setting Feral Cats Among Pigeons
Not quite sure of everything you mean, but the Scientific Method (hypothesize – test – conclude – repeat) certainly is a good habit for the mind to learn. And tempered with civility, as you imply, it goes a long way to make us good citizens. Throw in a little artistry and we become a charming people.
@Clive Best
It looks good! very handy.
In reply to Naomi Oreske’s polemic in the LA Times
Naomi: “Yet many Americans cling to the idea that it is reasonable to maintain an open mind. It isn’t, at least not to scientists who study the matter. They have been saying for some time that the case for the reality and gravity of climate change has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But there’s the rub. The public seems to view scientists as the equivalent of the prosecuting attorney trying to prove a case. The think tanks, institutes and fossil fuel corporations take on the mantle of the defense.”
You are on the wrong side of the climate change debate.
Global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet less than 1C, as planetary clouds in the tropics increase and decrease to resist forcing change. Most of the warming will occur at high latitudes increasing the growing season and the biosphere.
Plants eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to reduce growing times and to increase yield. C3 plants (all broad leaf type plants) loss roughly 50% of the water to transrespiration. When atmospheric CO2 increase C3 plants reduce the number of stomata and hence can make more effective use of water. Plants are moving into arid, desert regions due to the reduction in transrespiration. There is a reduction in desertification.
Unfortunately, if the past is a guide to the future the planet is about to abruptly cool. The biosphere shrinks when the planet cools.
There are cycles of warming in cooling the paleorecord. See figure 3 which an excerpt from Richard Alley’s paper on the Greenland Ice sheet cores.
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
“Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time, which is shown at the right hand side of the diagram. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1855, and the red dotted line indicate the approximate temperature increase since then. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.”
The solar cycle has been interrupted. If the past is a guide to the future the arctic will cool.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
“Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10-12 years.
The relations between the length of a solar cycle and the mean temperature in the following cycle, is used to model Svalbard annual mean temperature, and seasonal temperature variations. Residuals from the annual and winter models show no autocorrelations on the 5 per cent level, which indicates that no additional parameters are needed to explain the temperature variations with 95 per cent significance. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations.”
“These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5\pm2 oC from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009-20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of \approx6 oC.”
William:
Come now my good man. I am not looking forward to colder temps.
Please post something credible that shows we are going to at least maintain or increase global temps by a degree C or so. I want to bask in the radiant glow of warmth.
Anthony Watts says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:35 am
“Back down for lunch and a break.”
============
It is not nice to torment your faithful readership like this 🙂
Congrats Anthony,
That’s quite an acknowledgement in Forbes! I’d say that it puts into perspective the “science communications award” that Gavin Schmidt won…
Lucy, thanks for your comments and i like very much how you reflect over “what is real science” etc.
I think personally that we need BOTH types that can break walls ahout out, and then types that can refine things. Both “types” may have a tendency to critisize each other without realising the importance of both.
btw:
Monster Cold formation coming to Scandinavia like shot out of a Canon from East:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/monster2012.gif
The Scandinavian weather blogs.debates have started guessing what minimum temperatures will be… any guesses for an area?
K.R. Frank
Most important is the present post: “Giant veil of cold plasma discovered high above Earth”
it shown, how atmosphere gets away from Earth and then by the sunlight decomposed,
both water vapour and N2/ O2 ……
THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE SUBTRACTED from global warming calculations…. this is
clear: one cannot only add heat from CO2 and forget heat/air loss at the top of the
atmosphere……
Since the atmosphere does not expand in volume…..therefore….the same volume, as
added with CO2 for example, should be subtracted from the top of the atmosphere….
since this plasma-cloud does not grow, therefore it gets lost as a trail behind Earth…
Who can answer whether atmospheric losses in space are taken into account in
IPCC GMC-circulation models…….?
JS
William says:
January 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm
“In reply to Naomi Oreske’s polemic in the LA Times
[…]
You are on the wrong side of the climate change debate. ”
Don’t be silly. She studied English and Philosophy but dropped out without a degree. She probably doesn’t even know how a linear trend is computed.
Thanks Judy, I’m very familiar with plants and how they are zone this or that, the map just takes the coldest night per year and averages that. But the plants, or how they define the zone is not whats new, but he algorithm that figures out the temperatures between the official stations. Its very central to what Anthony does with the weather stations. I think despite headlines that the map is pro AGW, I doubt that very much but it is a new way to record the temps and it seems really cool. But duration of cold and growing degree days (GDD) are really what limits plants, not just the one time low temps 🙂
DirkH says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“Don’t be silly. She studied English and Philosophy but dropped out without a degree. She probably doesn’t even know how a linear trend is computed.”
Oh sorry. Confused it with Naomi Klein.
The article from the site below states that the Al Gore cruise will leave on 29th January from Argentina, and finish on 6th February.
http://www.newstoday.com.bd/index.php?option=details&news_id=51304&date=2012-01-26
I was going to wish Anthony a nice break, but he’s back already!
And Judy the last map 1990 used 1974 to 1986, this new map is 1976-2005. I think the important thing would be to include at least 1 full cycle as you point out, but it would be better with 2 cycles! So you get an accurate average.
Trouble in Greeny Land.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/environmentalists-departure-sheds-light-on-tension-felt-by-green-groups/article2313991/comments/
The Canadian government has really rattled the eco-extortionist business by threatening to look at their ‘charitable’ tax status while pointing out how many of them are backed by meddling American (Soros et al) interests.
Anthony Watts says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:35 am
Back down for lunch and a break.
Here’s something of interest:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/01/27/watts-up-who-killed-climated-change/
————-
Anthony. To paraphrase a famous political debate line… You sir are no Al Gore! Your humility about your accomplishments is breathtaking! From that article:
“But the sense of free inquiry and thought Watts has fostered on his site has shamed the climate apocalypse machine into inconsequence. David whupped Goliath, one of the most amazing achievements in the history of science communication.”
Indeed!
climbing radio station tower
an I go too???? Please????
Climbing radio towers?
Could be a new X-treme sport; do you base-jump from them?
Or are you Radio-Man! tara!! Who, in his electromagnetic lair, is ever alert to signs of scientists going bad.
Perhaps Watt you really need is mountains; or is that mountain-envy?
I hope it’s turned of while you climb, or do you wear a super-conductive Electro-Man suite? If not, you may be unintendedly “grounded”.