Taking a break, it has been an exhausting week. Postings resume Monday.
Be sure to vote in the August ARCUS sea ice forecast poll.
Taking a break, it has been an exhausting week. Postings resume Monday.
Be sure to vote in the August ARCUS sea ice forecast poll.
[Snip. Stop taking gratuitous shots at Anthony Watts. ~dbs, mod.]
Gunga Din says: @ur momisugly August 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm
…..Take two bottles of a carbonated beverage. Open both of them. Put one in the refrigerator, one on the kitchen counter. After a few hours, check to see which one has the most “fizz” left.
More gases, including CO2, will dissolve and remain dissolved in colder water than in warmer water. It takes time to warm or cool the oceans.
_________________________
Another Soda Pop experiment:
Take a plastic bottle of Soda (one no one in the house likes) and set it aside for two years. Open it and see how much ‘fizz’ is left compared to a brand new bottle. – Proof that Gases can “migrate” through solids.
Gail Combs says:
August 5, 2012 at 8:10 pm
H.R. says:
August 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm
As for the Arctic rowers; some days you get the Arctic and some days the Arctic gets you. Keep rowing and keep both oars in the water.
+++++++++++++++++
SIGH, Where are those Poley Bears when you rally need them.
[Moderator’s Note: I trust, Gail, that you meant that the Poley Bears would give them a valid incentive to row faster. -REP]
=========================================================================
Do rowers taste like seal or chicken?
For anybody who didn’t get their Big Oil payout yet, here is a Greenpeace report which investigates who did get it:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/3/koch-industries-secretly-fund.pdf
[REPLY: Didn’t see that one before. Interesting. It explains why I haven’t seen any of that big oil money. I’m not on the list. Well, maybe Exxon-Mobil has taken grateful notice and is simply back-logged. -REP]
Perlwitz, the more nonsense you emit the less respect I have for all the charlatans on your side of the fence. You talk about trends without any understanding. Here is the long term trend from the LIA. Notice that the trend is not accelerating. That means only one thing: the 40% rise in CO2 has not caused any measurable warming.
And you need to get up to speed on the BEST shenanigans. Muller is an unethical globaloney shill. Do a search, and you will see.
Smokey says: @ur momisugly August 5, 2012 at 6:40 pm
It gets tedious trying to educate someone with such a closed mind. No doubt that is the result of feeding at the public trough for so many years. You start to believe the runaway global warming nonsense you’re constantly emitting.
============================
More like he believes in his pay check. see my comment @ur momisugly link
I very much doubt most of these ‘scientists’ actually believe the bafflegab they publish. Given the article stating academics admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues….In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, I think we are running into the Hegelian Dialectic that is commonly found on left leaning campuses.
Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence. This also explains why there is such an emphasis placed on ‘The Consensus of 97% of Climate Scientists.’ To those steeped in the Hegelian Dialectic the conflict of the thesis (CAGW) with its antithesis (natural) has already been resolved the synthesis reached and it is time to move on to the social/economic implementation. This is also why we are “Denialists” in their minds. We are not only “Denying the Science” but worse we are denying their entire philosophy by insisting on the importance of real world data in decision making.
This is why no amount of real world data penetrates. Reality is only what they want it to be.(Except of course for that all important pay check)
SIGH, Where are those Poley Bears when you rally need them.
[Moderator’s Note: I trust, Gail, that you meant that the Poley Bears would give them a valid incentive to row faster. -REP]
_________________________
If you saw a Poley Bear would YOU stick around or row like the devil himself was after you?
Toto says:
August 5, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Strange that Greenpeace didn’t mention Koch giving money to Dr. Muller at BEST.
Are all believers in AGW sea green incorruptibles?
Gale Combs,
This woman thought polar bears were friendly. Jumped into the zoo enclosure. Surprise!
Maybe some of them are friendly, though.☺
………….who dare not turn his head for fear some dreadful fiend doth close behind him tread…
Well I may not run as fast as I did in Mexico 68 but if I met a Poley bear you would be amazed how fast I can still go if push comes to shove.
Kindest Regards
Smokey says:
August 5, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Gale Combs,
This woman thought polar bears were friendly….
_________________________
Yeah, Ye Ole’ Bambi Complex. Parents really need to counter all that Disney brainwashing with something like this.
I am continually amazed at just how idiotic some people are when it comes to safety and animals. A good friend just about had a heart attack when some idiot stopped by the side of the road and held her one year old up to pet the nice horsie. The horsie was a stallion. Luckily it was the mild-mannered one and not her young stallion who would just as soon take a hand off as look at you.
Heartfelt congratulations to NASA and the US for the successful landing of Curiosity! Amazing technology and technique.
Ditto on the NASA congrats. All engineers, no lawyers.
They had Dr Holdren on afterwards touting our great future in space. Forgot to mention we can’t put an astronaut in orbit, but maybe that just slipped his mind.
Smokey wrote:
Smokey commits another logical fallacy. He shows the temperature time series at a single location of the globe, the Central England temperatures. This is not a suitable data set to empirically or logically refute statements about the global temperature anomaly trend. Large variability due to weather can mask the warming signal, which is seen in the globally averaged temperature anomaly, in temperature time series at single locations. Also, not just the variability due to weather is a problem at single locations, the trend itself can not be seen as representative for the global temperature anomaly trend. Even if there is a global warming trend, which refers to the global temperature anomaly, there does not need to be a warming signal at each location of the globe. There even could be a cooling at some individual locations, while the globally averaged temperature is increasing. Global warming does not mean globally uniform warming.
Jan perlwitz
Cet is a highly suitable set to proxy global temperature which in itself is somewhat meaningless. In my article the long slow thaw I referenced the studies of numerous top scientists who see cet as being a useful proxy, although as Hubert lamb observed , ‘it demonstrates the tendency but not the precision.’
The fact that temperatures have been rising throughout the cet period from 1660 is especially interesting isn’t it?
Tonyb
Jan
As you may be aware around one third of global stations show a cooling signal which renders the term ‘global’ warming somewhat meaningless
Tonyb
kim2ooo, you wrote:
Are you seriously offering me as evidence for the validity of an assertion the number of links that is provided after entering some keywords in a search engine?
What about you try “alien abduction” on Google? I get 6,890,000 hits.
And you try to back up your opinion with what? With an article that smears Hansen based on rumors. The alleged evidence provided is linking a statement on one page in the Soros report about some advice, which was given to Hansen who tried to defend his constitutional rights, with a mentioned amount of money on another page through pure conjecture, although nothing in there says that this money was given to Hansen.
At least, let’s link to what Hansen himself said about this assertion to have received those $720,000:
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/distro_lawlessness_070927.pdf
In a previous comment, I mentioned the low standards, which are valid for evidence here, as long as it seems to support some preconceived views of the crowd here. Your comment is a nice example for this.
I also just have played a little thought experiment, imagining what would have happened here and elswhere in the blogosphere of the false skeptic universe, if it hadn’t been Hansen versus the Bush administration, but if the current administration tried to silence a scientist who claimed that there wasn’t any scientific evidence for global warming due to forcing by greenhouse gases from anthropogenic emissions and who had an equally long list as Hansen of actually peer reviewed scientific publications in the field, or not even that. What screams of bloody murder and censorship would occur here about the cabal who controlled the government and tried to suppress the truth!
In response to Smokey having written:
at August 6, 2012 at 12:10 am Jan P Perlwitz says:
[snip]
[snip]
Hmmm. No! Perlwitz’s point is obscurantism.
There has been no statically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years.
The UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research reported that their model does not appropriately deal with natural internal variability (Smith et al, 2007), but speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing global warming to resume. The discussion of a resumption of warming was an admission that warming had ceased. Subsequently, German modellers moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).
A cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming.
Furthermore, there were two periods of warming in the global temperature data sets; i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000. These two periods show the same rate of global temperature rise. So, even if one selects the trends in recent periods of global warming then there is no observed “acceleration” of their warming trends.
Simply, Smokey is right that “the trend [in global warming] is not accelerating”, and Perlwitz’s claim that Smokey used the wrong data set merely distracts from the fact that Smokey is right.
Richard
PS. Perhaps I should have mentioned that more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG emissions were after 1940.
@Jan, CET is almost identical to Northern Hemisphere temperature record. At least during the 20th century, the leading mode of temperature variation were changes in North Atlantic and Pacific SST going up and down in 30-year cycle, which overwhelmed rather weaker variations in the Southern hemisphere. So it is a good assumption, that CET represents NH well and fairly well the whole “global” record.
Second, “it is a single location of the globe” argument is funny. Is not the CO2 and the alleged “greenhouse effect” the same all over the globe, also above Central England?
a jones says:
August 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm
………….who dare not turn his head for fear some dreadful fiend doth close behind him tread…
Well I may not run as fast as I did in Mexico 68 but if I met a Poley bear you would be amazed how fast I can still go if push comes to shove.
Kindest Regards
=============================================================
It’s not how fast you run; it’s just making sure you run faster than the other guy ;o)
@Gerald Machnee August 5, 2012 at 11:10 am
“” They are not reporting ice and wind – they are expecting it.
They are anchored two miles from Barrow, but cannot make progress into the head wind.””
Accurate weather report. Webcam shows increased wave action on the beach and the odd white horse out to sea. Wind at 14mph from the north would be a tailwind methinks. Visibility is deteriorating.
Perlwitz tries to defend James “Coal Trains Of Death” Hansen by referring to alien abductions. Another fail. Politics and honest science don’t mix. What honest scientist would be doing this?
Please be precise in your terminology. CO2 levels in the atmosphere change due to a imbalance between the rate of emission (i.e. sources) and the rate of absorption (i.e. sinks). The sources include natural processes such as cellular respiration, fires, out-gassing, demineralization, etc. with a small contribution (est. 4%) from anthropogenic processes. The sinks include natural processes such as photosynthesis, dissolution, mineralization, etc. The equilibrium position will be controlled by Henry’s law, which states that the solubility of CO2 is an exponential function of the inverse absolute temperature.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Yet, earlier you pointed to proof of AGW that is based on an ideal water-corrected difference spectrum corresponding to a narrow band of wavelengths collected over a small portion of the Earth. You are committing the same logic error. You must integrate the entire incoming and outgoing radiation spectra (without correction) over the entire geometry of the earth to start to prove your point. After all, reduction in emission intensity from one region could be off-set by an increase in emission intensity from another (e.g. the poles).
Perlwitz says:
“Smokey commits another logical fallacy. He shows the temperature time series at a single location of the globe…”
.
I set a trap for Perlwitz, and now he’s caught. He complained that I produced only a single location, which is true… as far as it goes. But of course, there are many more locations showing the same thing.
Here are a total of seven locations from around the globe — and all of them show the same long term rising trend from the LIA, with no acceleration.
Perlwitz isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?