As you may know, I’m traveling this weekend to be with the founders and pioneers of The Weather Channel in Atlanta for an informal 30 year reunion, which I talked about in detail here.
Thanks, sincerely, to everyone for the help and support!
Blogging will be light this weekend, though I will post highlights and other items from the event when I can.
edbarbar says:
>>Can someone explain, or post a link to me, why the PDO oscillation should change the heat of the world?<<
I would be interested in the answer to this as well. Maybe the PDO (La Nina) actually somehow moves the heat elsewhere (e.g. deep in the ocean) or brings up the cold from the deeper ocean. But I too find it hard to understand how the PDO could swing the temperature for the globe (at least as we currently measure it) so quickly.
Madman2001
Vince Tzandler says:
April 27, 2012 at 6:40 pm
You don’t seem to understand the skepticism. It’s not that the planet is not warming, it’s about the cause!
Lets have some odds on whether it’s man made or natural!
See if you can convince them that the weather channel would be a good place to report weather around the country. I know that would take some time away from current management’s efforts to convince the world that global warming is about to kill us all, but we really would like a place to find a weather report.
Vince, the assumption that sea level is a proxy for AGW must be one of the dumbest things I’ve read in ages, never heard of that big bright thing in the sky? Oh and the shoreline where I live is still exactly in the same place it was forty years ago when I was a kid, so much for global sea level rises due to AGW and this is in a geologically neutral place with little shore line erosion. But hey, why let empirical data get in the way when you can rely on models or the closed shop of climatology as given to us by the ‘team.’
As for insurance companies, well they love the alarmist claims as it means higher premiums all around for everyone and we can always blame nasty CO2 and human activities rather than mother nature.
What do you think the result would be from, say, 175 atmospheric nuclear explosions over about a year? Say maybe 250 of them over a three year period?
We saw exactly that between 1961 and 1963.
Above at 10:29pm I replayed a comment I left at the ScottishSceptic, who subsequently at his site has personally replied to me. The thread is here: http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/we-can-easily-win
I called (see above, or the link!) for a “systematic structured funded” ad campaign to turn the tide decisively with public opinion. Public opinion, I say, is our only true gauge of success, and will for the most part determine policy.
BUT…. the ScottishSceptic seems to disagree with me, saying that (to win) “it is not that simple.” My reply to him:
Thanks for your reply ScottishSceptic. I’m in the USA, and I understand that there are differing institutional frameworks and in some places the freedom to do what I suggest may be restricted, but we see in the U.S. and elsewhere that as public opinion turned against AGW, many scientists have turned, and most of their policy goals failed. In a democracy, public opinion is going to drive policy, and scientists will eventually follow. Look what’s happening in Australia! That Carbon Tax is going to be trashed. Mark my word.
Keep in mind the leftist tilt of most scientists these days, and especially climate scientists who were for the most part pre-screened for agreement with the “science” and ideological goals of the Chicken Littles.
I agree with everything you say. We should do what you recommend. Clearly. But if it’s so simple to do what I suggest, why not go ahead and give it a shot? At least where it’s feasible. I think it would be decisive, but at minimum it couldn’t hurt. With proper managerial and creative and financial leadership (this could be just be 1 to 3 people, and outsourcing & volunteers as well). I hope to be able to spearhead it myself, maybe, though I don’t have the time and whatever right this moment, unfortunately. So I call on someone else to take the baton, if they can.
The problem with a nuclear explosion in a densely populated modern city with a lot of reinforced concrete structures, particularly if they are built to seismic standards, may not be with the number of people who die, it might be the number of people who survive that are actually the biggest challenge. In Japan, nearly every reinforced concrete building in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima survived. The trouble was there were so few of them. These buildings will create shadows from the initial radiation and will deflect and baffle the blast. More will likely be killed from flying glass than from the actual explosion. Streets will likely be several feet deep in the glass that is dislodged from the buildings.
Chances are good that if you do not receive a large enough dose of radiation to die within the first 90 days or are not killed due to physical injury from flying / falling debris, you will have a good chance of leading a normal lifespan.
The challenge in a modern city is to get to the injured in a contaminated environment and evacuate them from the area. There are going to be a lot of people who are not ambulatory in practically all floors of many buildings if such a thing were to happen during a normal working day. What is going to surprise people is how many buildings and people SURVIVE such an event and will require help.
Vince Tzandler says:
April 28, 2012 at 7:19 am
“+ Tadiation transport theory robustly predicts energy budget imbalance via CO2/GHE”
You don’t mention that there are feedbacks. Maybe you didn’t know it? Some of those feedbacks are negative. This could totally destroy the IPCC’s projections. At the moment it looks like that is exactly what’s happening.
“+ The predicted rise will be readily visible to shoreline property owners”
Not in their lifetime; tidal fluctuations totally swamp it when it’s rising with, say 1.7 mm/yr.
Heck, a small wave is twice as high as the maximum of 270mm I expect until 2100.
“+ Property insurance markets will assess the risk quantitatively”
Ha ha. Munich Re has lend two scientists to the IPCC. Whatcha think they’re doing there? Make sure that their employer has a reason to raise the premiums RSN.
“+ AGW skepticism that neither predicts sea-level values, nor participates in markets, will be assessed as having neither evidential, nor scientific, nor economic value; hence irrelevant.
AGW skepticism must sooner or later provide risk estimates, or be assessed as having neither evidential, nor scientific, nor economic value; hence irrelevant. It is notable that to date not even one AGW skeptic has posted odds estimates.”
Maybe we’re not bookies? It is totally irrelevant whether we skeptics post odds. I would love to bet against a warmist that sea level rise stays below 270mm until 2100; BUT I am interested in gains IN MY LIFETIME. And I don’t even know if such a bet would be legal for me… German laws are extremely prohibitive concerning betting.
BTW, see the climate bet for charity at Pierre Gosselin’s notrickszone.com . I didn’t partake because I’m a greedy bastard. Others did, though, skeptics and warmists.
Not sure who this richard gavin is over at real science, but he needs serious Help…
@Nerd April 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm:
Yeah, that is a great book, very revealing about the way archeologists will refuse to accept even solid geological lab results that may change their view of things. It is more important to not rock the boat than to find the facts and report them. So they buried Valsequillo as well as sediment did – hopefully not forever. The actions of that top scientist were heinous – literally destroying evidence. What a dick.
Steve Garcia
Eric Simpson said:
“I called (see above, or the link!) for a “systematic structured funded” ad campaign to turn the tide decisively with public opinion.”
The skeptics guerilla war has been successful at turning public opinion away from alarmism. What you are proposing would effectively be entering a conventional war strategy. In a conventional war the side with the most resources wins. We can’t stand toe to toe with the alarmists yet, they’ve got a few orders of magnitude more money. We’re better off sticking with our guerilla tactics for now in my opinion.
…… See the point man for a good articulation of this line of thinking.
I ran across this on Spiegel article “Setting Sun — Eastern Germany Hit hard by Decline of Solar” and wanted to share it: [click]
”The global solar industry has entered a brutal phase of consolidation and nowhere are the effects as dramatic as in eastern Germany. Several companies have already declared bankruptcy, leaving towns and cities in the region struggling with job losses and tax revenue shortfalls. The future bodes ill.”
Steve Garcia
Sometimes I hate WordPress. I don’t think I’ve ever been able to post an image or link here the first time. Stuff that posts on my own WordPress blog work fine. Here on comments they never come in right.
Steve Garcia
[You need an anchor word. I added “[click]” before the /a tag below. ~dbs, mod.]
After reading WUWT closely for a year or two, I finally saw a pop-up ad for something that’s useful to me, something that was worth clicking to examine. (Heat tape to prevent roof ice-dams)
All the other pop-up ads until today have been for pro-Green causes or pro-Green businesses. I don’t know if this heat-tape company is pro-Green or not, but it’s the only ad that wasn’t EXPLICITLY appealing to Gaians.
Certainly tells you where all the money is … or at least where businesses THINK all the money is.
The Poems of Our Climate says:
April 27, 2012 at 10:47 pm
“I notice the Weather Underground seems to promote global weather panic. Can anyone recommend a weather site that doesn’t seem to push this kind of agenda? Thanks.”
POC,
Try this video “Global Warming Panic explained” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s
From Mr. Mimms – Protocol for “total water vapor” measurement with a $50 IR thermometer…
BRILLIANT as usual!
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3215.1
Max
I really liked this bit in that Spiegel article”
Now, as great a we site as WUWT is, nor even ClimatteAudit, but even WUWT and CA together have not done this. This is a supposedly CAGW-believing world not buying it – literally.
What is really happening is this: When world production is more than double world consumption of an item, that cannot happen unless someone is selling someone an intenable idea. And in this case it is businesses who have bought into a drummed-up and unreal idea, that the world is just salivating at the idea of solar panels.
But the real question is this: Solar panels??? SOLAR PANELS??? You mean those things that have been around for 40 years and have never been efficient enough or cheap enough to sell on the open market? In other words, those things that people don’t think are worth it?
How did those companies buy into such an outdated concept? One word: Expected government regulations that never came to pass. Oh? That is more than one word? Eight words? Well, that is 1-to-8, or about 12.5%. And that is about the efficiency of solar panels. Now if the things cost, like, maybe $500 to cover a roof, installed, they might have made a market for themselves. But that was never going to happen.
And since that never happened, and since the governments’ promised legislation also never happened, this was a real sucker punch to those who tried to get in on the ground floor. The government prospectuses were a lot like those mining prospectuses Steve McIntyre weeds out: A lot of pretty brochure promises and no ore in the mine.
A good deal of that failure DOES have to be put down to the 2008 crash and its ripples around the world. People are not in an economic mood for paying for solar panels that will need replacing before they are paid off. The economy killed the green movement – and thank the gods they did.
At the same time, I happen to think solar panels are cool – IF THEY WORK AND ARE COST-EFFECTIVE. If I could put some on my roof and never have to pay another energy bill, hells yes, I’d love that. But I’ve been waiting since 1972 for that to happen, and it never has. Nothing appreciable has happened in solar panels since 1972. The only reason they seemed a good idea to produce was because of expected government regulations. And tight budgets meant no regulations, no forcing people to spend money on inefficient energy ‘soluions’. Though they are a good idea at the right price if they met their promise, solar panels have simply never met their promise.
Watch what happens in the next 3-4 years. Even the Chinese making them cheap now are going to stop or scale back.
Steve Garcia
[i]Why media ignore scientists who tackle taboos[/i]
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/04/27/lawrence-solomon-censored-science/
Why media ignore scientists who tackle taboos
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/04/27/lawrence-solomon-censored-science/
feet2thefire says:
April 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm
“What is really happening is this: When world production is more than double world consumption of an item, that cannot happen unless someone is selling someone an intenable idea.”
I disagree; it’s a normal Boom-Bust-Steady Growth cycle; completely ordinary in new markets. The bust happens in slow motion due to subsidies but it happens.
“But the real question is this: Solar panels??? SOLAR PANELS??? You mean those things that have been around for 40 years and have never been efficient enough or cheap enough to sell on the open market? In other words, those things that people don’t think are worth it?”
They have come down in price in a nice exponential, again, completely normal for new technologies. One of the largest costs in production is making the silicon blocks before cutting them into layers. The price for this silicon has come down very much more than people expected in, say 2008, due to more efficient production of larger quantities. Some German solar companies had to renegotiate long-term delivery contracts because of this; their argument was: give us better terms or we’re going bust. That was the choice so the suppliers agreed to lower the price. This happened already 2 years ago.
“How did those companies buy into such an outdated concept? One word: Expected government regulations that never came to pass.”
But Steve, those regulations came to pass in Germany – generous feed in tariffs. The problem for many solar companies was and is that they got successfull, fat and lazy very fast, and had a hard time adapting to the rapidly shrinking margins – they thought they could fix it with more lobbying instead of hard-nosed business practives.
And so they perish.
And one more word: The German feed in tariff was designed from the start to be reduced over time. What happens now was announced from the start. The solar companies that die now have deserved it.
@John West. “The skeptics guerilla war has been successful at turning public opinion away from alarmism. What you are proposing would effectively be entering a conventional war strategy [where we would lose].”
What you say, at first glance, sounds reasonable. But… and I applaud the incredible work of all of us in the blogisphere here in fighting the big money propagandists… this cannot be considered a war in a literal sense where actual bullets fly. We would not be “invading” anyone where a response or defense would be called for. Yes, they could respond to our campaign, but I believe the data and evidence is on our side, that is why we win debates, and that is why we would when any public battle, whether it be considered “conventional” or not.
Importantly, I think things have changed as far as our ability to marshal a competitive level of resources. As I’ve said, it’s increasingly clear that the AGW issue is having a large impact on elections, and on public policy, so potential donors can be courted on this basis. Also, any campaigns would solicit funds in the ads, and conservatives would be strongly motivated to give $ to an effective campaign. So, huge $ could be raised to support the campaign(s).
Further, you talk about the effectiveness of our guerilla effort. Problem is that it wasn’t until 2008, and really 2009 and ’10 that we made significant gains. Look at what happened in the 2000s prior to this. Despite this guerilla war, we lost. By the start of 2007 even a majority of conservatives had been duped into believing the AGW scam.
The start of the change in public opinion I think was the 2007 airing of the “conventional” TV show The Great Global Warming Swindle, which got a lot of play on the internet, and provided the publicity for the central anti-AGW arguments we needed. Later we had an incredible stroke of luck with Climategate.
But we are that close to losing again. Arguably, over the last year, in some polls anyway, it has started to go south for us again. We are up against the goliath MSM. We have to do something to get public visibility and bypass the MSM. The guerilla war, for the most part, is not reaching the public as needed.
The climate consensus says that only the experts (those with PhDs and peer reviewed articles) can speak about climate science. Yet when it comes to word definition do they defer to the consensus of experts behind the best dictionaries. Not when it comes to the word “skeptic”.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/29/michael-manns-narrow-definition-of-skepticism/
Eric Simpson says:
April 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
But… and I applaud the incredible work of all of us in the blogisphere here in fighting the big money propagandists… …but I believe the data and evidence is on our side, that is why we win debates, and that is why we would when any public battle, whether it be considered “conventional” or not….Problem is that it wasn’t until 2008, and really 2009 and ’10 that we made significant gains. Look at what happened in the 2000s prior to this. …By the start of 2007 even a majority of conservatives had been duped into believing the AGW scam.
The start of the change in public opinion I think was the 2007 airing of the “conventional” TV show The Great Global Warming Swindle, which got a lot of play on the internet, and provided the publicity for the central anti-AGW arguments we needed. Later we had an incredible stroke of luck with Climategate.
But we are that close to losing again. Arguably, over the last year, in some polls anyway, it has started to go south for us again.
==================================================
Eric, I am afraid, the slight recent change in the public opinion was not caused by the sceptical blogs in the first place, but rather by one or two cold winters. And by the fact, that the warmist propaganda (successfully) interpreted warm weather as a sign of “global warming”. So logically some people interpreted cold weather as an evidence against “global warming”. If one or two hot summers occur, they will change their mind again.
Another problem is, that some of so called sceptics are in fact moderate warmists, who actually reinforce the fundamental position of the radicals, and if you confront them on the core issues, it is getting nasty. Look at the thread “Why there cannot be a global warming consensus” for example.
The third problem is, that like 99% of what has been published on the blogs is ineffective in sense of changing the public opinion, because the most ordinary people would not even read the articles to the end, too complicated. A lot of articles would be in the best case perceived by them as speculations, only in a different direction. Any way, this is my perception.
I am not saying, that I have a perfect solution, but I think the top priority should become the core statements, basics of the AGW concept, because they are fictions, although skilfully constructed. These basics can be debunked in a way, that would be understandable for ordinary people. Again, chasing all the 99999 errors of the AGW is ineffective and unnecessary. Just core issues.
If you look at the list of government grants that have been given to the State Penn, you can understand why Mann made global waming is vitally important to the State Penn.
http://www.research.psu.edu/news/news