I’ve got lots of work to do this weekend, so I’ll leave it to you folks to entertain yourselves for awhile.
Be sure to tune in on noon PDT Monday for a special announcement related to Al Gore and TV.
– Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
to the moderator: Wondering why I’m still moderated after years of occasional postings.
[Reply: You are not moderated any differently than other commentators. — mod.]
Gunga Din @ur momisugly October 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm
This is not a “who said what when”, more a “who published what when”:-
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bibdate.htm
Here’s a random science question (and perhaps something new to you).
Have you ever heard of primary cilia? I never, ever heard of them before but they appear to be vital appendages to most cells, and only recently have they come to be appreciated.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/345831/title/Nouveaux_Antennas says in part:
It’s been quite a while since I learned something important from Science News I hadn’t picked up on elsewhere.
Interesting presentation on wind dependent emissivity of sea water, a bit dated perhaps but I had never seen it…
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Sea_Water_Emissivity_Volz.pdf
Sea Water Emissivity – A neglected climate forcing
Hartwig Volz RWE Dea AG, Wietze E&P Laboratory,
Wietze, Germany
Santa Fe Conference, July 17 to 21, 2006
Summary and Conclusions:
From physical data generated in the context of satellite “remote
sensing” it can be shown that wind dependant sea water thermal
emissivity is a dominating climate parameter, also in comparison
with anthropogenic atmospheric greenhouse gas and aerosol
concentrations.
The importance of this parameter can be traced and clearly
identified in paleoclimatological as well as neoclimatological
records.
Disregard of sea surface emissivity leads to unrealistically high
climate sensitivities when these are derived from climate history
matches.
By positive feedback mechanisms sea water emissivity
characteristically contributes as an amplifier to natural climate
fluctuations (glacial / interglacial; other cycles, possibly of solar
origin).
Sea water emissivity amplified the solar influence on climate
during medieval warm period and little ice age.
clipe says:
October 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Just finished reading a pdf from Tim Ball – coincidently.
Coincidentally is the same as coincidently. The former version was first used in 1837, while the latter was first used in 1629. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, they mean “in a coincident manner; concurrently, at the same time.”
http://statesmancaitlin.blogspot.ca/2009/12/day-i-become-tense-mistress.html
Just talking to myself folks. Thought I made a mistake but I was wrong which proves I'm not perfect/bollocks
Jan P Perlwitz said:
October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Mark and two Cats asked in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/#comment-1125109
“Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?”
I don’t know what and who “warmunist” supposedly are, but why don’t you check yourself? Here is the cover letter:
http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php
It is signed, “Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Science, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University”.
————————————————
I did see that but its format looks pretty innocent – don’t see how it could be confused with an official NAS document: No NAS letterhead, etc.
Perlwitz also said “…that the NAS didn’t have anything to do with it and did not agree with the content of the petition…”
I do not see where the petition claims to be from NAS. Seitz clearly states that he is a PAST president, but beyond that, I see nothing in the text that gives the impression of it being an official NAS document. That is why I wanted to see the original format of the petition – to see if it had letterhead, etc.
Perlwitz: [signatories] “…allegedly had the scientific qualification and competence to make expert judgements on the validity of scientific theories in the field of climate… ”
Scientific qualification and competence like algore has?
Perlwitz: “I don’t know what and who “warmunist” supposedly are…”
Warmunists (my coinage) are those on the far left who wrap themselves in vestments of green to push their anti-free enterprise, anti-industrial, anti-Capitalist agenda. If the jackboot fits, wear it.
Jeff L says:
October 27, 2012 at 11:50 am
—————–
I’ve “skied” a few times, but after watching Warren Miller’s video named “Cold Fusion”, I realise I never really did. ( the sound track is good too ).
Weekend Viewing
Solid Scientific Evidence we are Headed for a Pole Shift! (FULL LENGTH)
(2 pages) 28 Oct: The National, UAE: Vesela Todorova: Global warming – the full picture
The last time the world’s climate scientists produced a major report, it had the effect of ending the scientific debate about whether man-made climate change was a real phenomenon…Due to be published in October 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fifth Assessment Report is expected to be the most detailed on climate change ever produced, and for the first time answer important questions about how each region will be affected…
Comments are allowed if scientific language is difficult to understand or if statements need to be qualified with nuances.
But changes to the text must be scientifically justified. Government cannot remove sections because they don’t like the science.
“There are a few limited changes,” Prof van Ypersele said. In past reports, a “few dozens of lines” were changed, but “never … a change affecting a scientific conclusion”.
***The summary is approved by consensus, a process that usually takes three to four days and at least a night of talks…
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/environment/global-warming-the-full-picture
“at least a night”?
Linkedin: Vasela Todorova
Groups and Associations:
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN BULGARIA
Middle East Sustainability Group
United Nations Environment Programme
http://ae.linkedin.com/pub/vesela-todorova/4b/a86/1a9
how sad:
28 Oct: Guardian: Robin McKie: David Attenborough: force of natureDavid Attenborough may have lived the perfect life, travelling the world and seeing its wonders before tourism ravaged them. He talks to Robin McKie about his early regrets, battles with climate-change deniers, and his favourite place on Earth
Coral reefs are now being destroyed at a staggering rate…
Reefs are dying because ocean waters are being acidified as carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere as a result of human industrial activity…
It is a simple question of numbers, says Attenborough. “There is no problem on Earth that could not be solved quite easily if you could reduce world population. The reason that oil palms are being planted all over the place is because there are so many mouths, so many people in the west offering to pay for these forests to be cut down and palms planted for margarine, for plastics.”…
In the past, he was criticised for not making clear his position on global warming, and for not taking on those who deny that climate change is occurring. However, in the past few years, he has been far more explicit in his warnings about the dangers our planet faces as it warms up and the polar regions melt.
Not surprisingly, these attempts at enlightenment have brought him into conflict with those who reject the idea that the Earth is in peril. For example, in the final episode of his last major series, Frozen Planet, Attenborough highlighted the impact of global warming on the polar regions. He pointed out that summer sea ice cover has declined by more than 30% over the past few decades and is causing major disruptions to the wildlife.
Nigel Lawson, former chancellor and leading climate-change denier, was unamused…
So what does Attenborough think about climate change deniers like Lawson? What should be done to counter their highly selective views about global warming?
“Well, it is difficult to know what to say except that people like him have to be allowed to make these claims so that others can assess them. Any idea of suppressing their views would be disastrous. We need to be able to see just how wrong-headed they are and how selective they are in picking data to support their ideas. They pinpoint examples to say global warming cannot be happening because it got colder in some area of the planet. That is the sort of thing they say. But, of course, that completely misunderstands the global nature of the crisis we are facing. We have to keep pointing that out. Certainly I think that most people would recognise that Lawson is up a gum tree.
“The truth is: the natural world is changing. And we are totally dependent on that world. It provides our food, water and air. It is the most precious thing we have and we need to defend it.”…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/oct/26/richard-attenborough-climate-global-arctic-environment?newsfeed=true
“the natural world is changing”…who wouldn’t have thought that?
@Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm
——————————————
Your reasoning is anti-science and pro-authority.
Scientist of any branch are trained in the scientific method. They would therefore hardly comment on issues they do not understand. Assuming the opposiie is hubristic.
However, many issues with most influential climate science papers such as the Hockey Stick papers, the Rahmstorf papers, Santer, Gergis and many others are purely mathematical, statistical and/or very basic and well within the range of expertise of the petition signers. The Hockey Stick issues have even been explained by Andrew Montford to a level, that a non scientist may be in a sufficiently competent position to understand those.
Other issues arose with the climategate emails and backstories, as reported by Steve McIntyre and others and their lack of investigation. This mostly isn’t a scientific issue at all, but a field where anyone with interest, sufficent time and good will, will conclude, that disturbing things have been and continue to be going on in climate science.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Since when, and who is the authority that deems someone is qualified to be a “scientist”? In some scientific fields, “professional scientists” (those who make a living at doing science) work with and greatly appreciate the work done by “amateur scientists” (those who do science out of a passion for the field). Probably the strongest pairing is that between the AAVSO (American Association of Variable Star Observers) and professional astronomers.
Probably the weakest linkage is between professional climate scientists (e.g. the group selected in the Doran/Zimmerman survey) and amateurs like many of us. There are so many things that could be improved in a partnership between the two groups, the Station Survey should have been one of those, and it could have been extended to provide ground truth for things like determining rural vs urban sites from satellite imagery.
Measurements like sky cover and even sky temperature (from IR thermometers) could be collected or verified. They could be mobilized to monitor something like sky cover for certain events that could be run similarly to the Christmas bird count.
In fact, today is the annual “Southern New England Weather conference,” an event that links interested lay people with TV meteorologists, folks from NWS offices, and others like Joe D’Aleo. I know he was there today, I decided to skip it this year.
Back when Scientific American was worth reading, “The Amateur Scientist” was many readers’ favorite column (mine was Mathematical Games). The whole staff of the magazine respected the interests and skills of the readers.
Yet here you are, not just denigrating WUWT readers, but denigrating a huge percentage of the scientific community, from Nobel Laureates to scientists that keep the city sewage system running. I wonder exactly who is qualified in your view to sign the Oregon Petition? It seems to me it may be the 77 people selected in the Doran/Zimmerman survey.
Dr. Perlwitz, many scientific organizations have found that outreach to interested lay people and even open houses for the general public do great things in term of local support. CRU, GISS, and even the NCDC seem to get out of their way avoid outreach. Things could have been so much different had these organizations worked with folks like John Daly. Instead, you’ve built up walls to keep the rifraff out of your ivory tower, and now you make it clear only a very select few are qualified to join you.
It sounds like a very isolating existance.
Richdo says:
October 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Interesting presentation on wind dependent emissivity of sea water, a bit dated perhaps but I had never seen it…
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Sea_Water_Emissivity_Volz.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting paper! I’m not sure the correlations prove their point as strongly as they do, but the notion that ocean emissivity must change with wind speed and wave action seem awfully darn logical. This is the first time I’ve seen the issue brought up at all. Now that I’m thinking about it, seems like it deserves more scrutiny.
Mercury Radio Arts?
@davidmhoffer
Yeah, I thought so too. Was looking for a reasonable emmisivity for ocean water, think I’ll go with 0.95 but was surprised by the sensitivity to wind speed; as is albedo by the way: http://snowdog.larc.nasa.gov/jin/Papers/jingrl04.pdf
Jan Perlw1tz;
I grew up in a northern temperate zone known for harsh winters. I know from decades of experience that when there is very little snow over the course of the winter, spring is invariably late.
I, and most farmers in the area, can explain why.
Can you?
The warming since 1980 was caused by clean air legislation in the the US, UK and Europe. Not by CO2.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/huge-increase-in-sunshine-reaching-earth-12-5-times-the-co2-warming/
The warming ended as China embraced coal.
Richdo says:
October 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Interesting presentation on wind dependent emissivity of sea water, a bit dated perhaps but I had never seen it…
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Sea_Water_Emissivity_Volz.pdf
Very interesting, but when explained rather obvious.
Increased wind = increased waves = increased ocean surface = increased emissivity
No mention of increased evaporation, which would also occur.
And wind speeds have increased over the last 2 decades.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6028/451.abstract
Which makes atmospheric warming an effect of ocean cooling, and therefore climate cooling.
It also suggest answers to puzzling issues like how do the rapid climate changes like at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas occur.
I’ll have more on a Lunar pole shift that may have already occurred later.
Magnetic North Pole Moving 40 Miles Per Year MSNBC January 7th, 2011
2011-THE POLE SHIFT IS REALLY HAPPENING NOW! Main Stream Media AGREES
Apparently, our back & forth threatens the very fabric of democracy itself!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20121024
…ummm, excuse me, SA, I thought that healthy & vigorous discourse over topics such as climate change was the FOUNDATION of democracy, not the threat to it?
Australia’s Antarctic supply ship “RSV Aurora Australis” has been icebound or hindered by seaice for at least a week now. Near Casey Base.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1801
magicbeancounter- sounds like you’ve taken a page from the Drake equation for calculating the liklihood of intelligent extraterrestrial life. String together a bunch of unknown and probably unknowable probability functions, make some guesses at to the values, and you can come up with any value you want. It doesn’t work for climate changes either.
Ex. CGW= f {Kx} where x>1 (2) what makes you think termperature rise is exponential. The historical record shows that mostly the earth has been ice free after life developed. It’s only in the last few millenia that the climate has fluctuated between ice ages and warmer interglacials. Nobody has shown any evidence that this is going to change.
You make a basic assumption that at T goes up so do costs. Any evidence? What about when the temperature goes down. I’d consider going into another glacial period would be a climate catastrophe, as far as humanity is concerned.
Likelihood really only applies to well-researched and understood changes. Trying to assign a likelihood to a rare event and then discount it by that figure doesn’t do a bit of good if the catastrophe happens. Just because we thought it unlikely doesn’t mean the costs are any less. Yelllowstone could blow up tomorrow. There is no way to even begin to guess how likely this is.
Like the Drake equation, this is a pointless excercise.
Yes, Pat, it is sad. I used to read the Guardian too. And buy it, sometimes. I’d like to say I’ve grown up or become more intelligent since, but I honestly think, like Saint David Attenborough, Guardian editors have simply lost some of their abilities to distinguish facts from wishful-thinking. [A newspaper will always be able to find ‘journalists’ to write what the editor wants written.]
I think the sign that they had really lost the plot was when they got some of their more stupid readers to try and swing Clark County, Ohio against Bush by writing letters to send across the Atlantic.
Dimwits.
It seem to me, reversals of the Earth’s magnetic poles occurs, due to viscous flows within the Earth’s molten iron core, similar to the flows we see happening within the iconic Lava Lamp.
If we add up the measurable surface area of the magnetic changes within the core closest to the surface of the Earth, maybe we could get a better sense of when a major magnetic shift may occur.
Sometimes when you venture off the beaten path of mainstream media science with an open mind, you may discover so many more valid and fascinating things in a evening such as this like I have.
This video has a dramatic soundtrack but for a Saturday evening, I think it is well worth viewing, especially for the information it contains.
Polar shift of the MOON Captured on film
“You are not moderated any differently than other commentators.”
Thanks, and apologies for not reading site policy. Given the volume of comments and the brief post-to-appearance interval, you folks are obviously doing a fantastic job!