Just a bit burnt out today. Need to take a rest from blogging. Here’s some tidbits from email submissions to chew on though:
Sing for the Climate: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/a-commie-song-for-climate.html#comment-form
======================
ClimateProgress/Forecast the fact Brad Johnson makes an idiot of himself:
======================
Michael Mann -vs- Marc Morano:
Marc writes: Note, i was asked at very end to respond to Mann, but my answer was cut off from air or at least transcript.
Source: BBC World Service: Newshour URL: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/MannvsMoranoNewshour.mp3
Date: 30/11/2012
Event: Michael Mann: Marc Morano “uses language that makes it sound like we should be subject to death threats”
Credit: Bishop Hill and BBC World Service
Transcript: https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20121130_nh
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What Did I Tell You!? says:
December 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quite the rant. If you are going to rant on about all the holes in climate science, by all means do so, but please, get your own science right. What happens in a submarine is not remotely comparable to what happens in the atmosphere. One is a closed system with very limited scale, the other is an open system with a massive scale thousands of times that of a submarine.
Here is an excellent paper on exactly what does happen when IR passes through an artificial atmosphere with different amounts of CO2:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
After you’ve read that, please read the .zip file at the top, which explains why the experiment might have some validity in a closed system like a submarine, but not at the scale of the atmosphere.
Bottom line: IR does get absorbed by CO2 and does elevate temperatures to some extent. What that extent is, and what the feedback effects are, is unknown for certain, but the data indicates very low.
Kent, how do you know what motivates people to make those threats against Mann? Are you one of the ones who are doing the threatening?
gymnosperm says:
December 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm
For a single storm this is a pretty good amount.. More than I have seen in my life time. it may not be a record or it might.. not really sure.. But remembering the record snow falls in 1981/1982 and then watching as early and warm springs took off… i know what happens when warming occurs and given the burn off this year in a lot of areas its going to be a major mud bath and unstable soil conditions..
Interesting Climate reference in a 1967 movie I watched last night.
The movie: Five Million Years to Earth. Also known as Quatermass and the Pit.
The Quotes:
“Professor Bernard Quatermass: The will to survive is an odd phenomenon. Roney, if we found out our own world was doomed, say by climatic changes, what would we do about it?
Dr. Mathew Roney: Nothing, just go on squabbling like usual.
Professor Bernard Quatermass: Yes, but if we weren’t men? ”
————–
I wonder if the Alarmists watched this movie when they were younger.
davidmhoffer says
BTW, I don’t think you meant to do this, but you just admitted that the science is NOT settled. Do you still get paid your regular troll fees when you screw up and go off message like that?
———
David I am willing to forego my troll fees and donate them to you. You will not notice a change in your bank balance.
As for the “science being settled” I am not into mischievous interpretations. The scientists did not shut up shop and stop their research after the IPCC report came out, so it’s reasonable to conclude they did not mean that phrase in the sense the climate skeptic land wants to interpret it.
Science is always predicated on the possibility that mistakes can be made. That means that normal science talk is full of if buts and maybes no matter how well the science is settled.
For example we can put a lander on mars to within a few meters using just Newtonian mechanics. But the science of gravity is not settled. So if someone objects to paying for space missions and starts complaining about the whole enterprise is worthless because the science of gravity is not settled, how are you going to explain “settled” to the listening public.
If you wanted to communicate honestly to the public you would say the science of gravity is settled where settled means what the public understands settled to mean, and not what scientists understand what settled means.
For climate science settled means we know enough to start planning and acting for the future. It does not mean we have to understand every little detail.
Kent Beuchert on December 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm
I wonder if Mann realizes that , if those threats against him actually happened, they are the result of his ethics and personality rather than anything having to do with his theories.
———–
Well Ken the evidence is against you.
Because just about anyone who has taken a position that climate skeptics don’t like has been subject to accusations of incompetence and or dishonesty. In some cases nasty emails have been sent.
So name one climate scientist who has put the AGW position but has earned the respect of skeptic land. I can’t think if any.
On the other hand I have seen some pretty mediocre scientists who are anti-AGW lauded to the skies, simply because they tell climate skeptic land what they want to here.
what did I tell you says
It’s crime and it’s criminality masking itself as ‘belief’. Political ‘belief.’
It’s crime.
———–
You seem to be way off on the science since CO2 is not a magic gas. I can’t begin to explain the Green house effect to you since it’s beyond your inclination to understand it. Nothing impedes understanding more than a desire not to understand.
gymnosperm on December 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Phillip Bradley,
Since the 256, 512, and 1024 cycles “correspond” with the base 4/16 (English) memory modules in your computer, surely it must be an artifact.
———-
Good call.
It’s also the standard data set length for a Fourier transform. Cant say the suspicion is correct until its been checked in detail. Don’t like to jump to concussions.
davidmhoffer says:
December 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm
What Did I Tell You!? says:
December 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Quite the rant. If you are going to rant on about all the holes in climate science, by all means do so, but please, get your own science right. What happens in a submarine is not remotely comparable to what happens in the atmosphere. One is a closed system with very limited scale, the other is an open system with a massive scale thousands of times that of a submarine.”
I’ve watched you try to bark Magic Gas at anyone who’ll visit your Area51 region where reality is overcome by ‘this zip file’ for years. You haven’t transmitted, captured, and analyzed electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and industrial compounds for money, and never been fired. I have. You’re a debutante with a ‘magic gas zip file.’
LIke all debutantes who can’t explain their flawed fascination with fantasy physics, you can’t produce an instrument noting special handling of heat by a gas either.
Dear Moderators, PLEASE fix the original post!
It should have said (going from page source, toss in correction to first line):
—
ClimateProgress/Forecast the Facts’ Brad Johnson makes an idiot of himself:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-climate-activist-speech-grassroots-organizers_664311.html
======================
Michael Mann -vs- Marc Morano:
Marc writes: Note, i was asked at very end to respond to Mann, but my answer was cut off from air or at least transcript.
Source: BBC World Service: Newshour
URL: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/MannvsMoranoNewshour.mp3
—
Resumes at bolded “Date:”
[Reply: Odd. Text was there, but some odd HTML was hiding it. Removed some wrong looking bits and now it shows. Hope it’s right. -ModE ]
Very interesting blog about polar bears. This site needs more traffic!
http://polarbearscience.com/2012/11/13/how-long-have-polar-bears-lived-in-hudson-bay/#more-638
Hoffman you’ve already started trying to claim light handling by a gas is dependent on whether it’s in a submarine’s experimental greenhouse, or a planet.
If you keep barking that Magic Gas at me I’m going to embarrass you and it’s going to take awhile as you see how many ways you can refuse to confess you heard a question but refuse to speak to it, but it’s going to be so easy for me, it’s going to be with the offhand ease of taking candy from a child – which is why ALL Magic Gas sites have censorship of comments by site owners.
There are no Magic Gas sites where comments aren’t carefully monitored and people removed, who create laughing stocks of the Magic Gassers.
Dear Moderators,
Found in my last comment:
[Reply: Odd. Text was there, but some odd HTML was hiding it. Removed some wrong looking bits and now it shows. Hope it’s right. -ModE ]
It’s not, first link still messed up, end part missing carriage return. I supplied a “looks like what was intended” block that presumably you could have pasted right in that section as a replacement, since on your end you have the “code” version of my comment.
u.k.(us) says (Dec 1, 7:16 pm )
“FWIW, the new fonts are freaking me out.”
Thank you! I thought it was just my recent browser update, and was wondering where the setting was so I could change it back.
Anthony – Please don’t burn out. Dr. Steve prescribes a long, relaxing soak in a hot bath, followed by a bit of “downtime” helping the family put up the Christmas decorations. Or should that be the Mayan Doom decorations this year? 😉
LazyTeenager says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:39 pm
“You seem to be way off on the science since CO2 is not a magic gas. I can’t begin to explain the Green house effect to you since it’s beyond your inclination to understand it. Nothing impedes understanding more than a desire not to understand.”
Here’s the way this shakes out, stupid: YOU believe in a magical gas whose heat-handling characteristics are somehow different from every other class of gaseous matter, adjusted for spectral affinity.
You’ve been at this site years yourself claiming you see no problem with a scientific foundation based on ‘the world might end but I can’t show you my algorithms I might need them for something bigger in the future.’
Your the hick who thought it was possible for the infrared astronomy field to miss the steady rise of infrared in the atmosphere as the entire human scientific establishment from small boys in Niger to top-level government organizations from the first world poured every angle they could possibly contrive to find out if a GIANT HEATER
was TRAPPING the HEAT from the EARTH in.
You FORGOT the ENTIRE TIME that if those GASES which you claim to be fascinated with block light’s travel OUT,
they had to first block it’s travel IN: meaning that if there’s MORE of it, there is MORE of it, blocking light coming IN, in the FIRST place.
You think the INSULATED BLANKET SHIELDING YOU from the GIANT BALL of FIRE out in space,
is MAKING you HOT.
THAT is the level of non reality-based thinking MAGIC GAS brings it’s ADHERENTS.
You’re the class thinker which sees NO PROBLEM with the RESEARCH of a FIELD which TO A MAN couldn’t tell that a SCRAWL making HOCKEY sticks from CALIBRATION DATA
wasn’t real math.
You’re the class thinker which sees NO PROBLEM with the RESEARCH of a FIELD which TO A MAN couldn’t tell that a TREE
can’t be turned into a MAGIC TREEMOMITUR because of that ‘heat, light, oxygen-roots/carbon dioxide-canopy, physical damage-canopy/physical damage-roots,
13-15 SEPARATE ELEMENTS in PROPORTION thing.
You’re the class thinker which sees NO PROBLEM with the RESEARCH of a FIELD which TO A MAN couldn’t tell that a WHOLE SET of INFRARED FREQUENCIES were NOT GROWING in the ATMOSPHERE while SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING that both the AMOUNT GIVEN OFF by EARTH,
and, the AMOUNT RETAINED by said atmosphere WERE growing.
To a MAN not ONE of them thought to simply review the infrared astronomy records of students and organizations through the years through various filters, on various instruments
and find out that OH! well WHAT do you KNOW it’s NOT only NOT GROWING there’s LESS earth-shine frequency atmospheric infrared.
After looking for TWENTY YEARS, infrared sensors out on the plains of AGW Ground Central the Midwest USA at night find LESS atmospheric infrared, coming down striking their sensor arrays.
But you’re here to inform us that magic hockey stick math and magic bore holes and magic gas are very much the cutting edge of science, and so you don’t have to listen to the side that
DISCOVERED the HOCKEY stick scrawls are TRASH
DISCOVERED the atmospheric infrared is DECLINING not RISING
DISCOVERED the magic gas isn’t really magic when Tony Watts did ALGOR’s ‘let’s add some gas to the bottle’ experiment, on the internet.
You’re a hick. You’ve got the scientific literacy of your peers. The MAGIC GAS crowd.
LazyTeenager;
For climate science settled means we know enough to start planning and acting for the future. It does not mean we have to understand every little detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A global temperature increase of ZERO over the last 16 years, during which CO2 went from 364 ppm to 392 ppm is a…. detail?
Declining Accumulated Cyclone Energy is a…. detail?
Decelerating sea level rise is a…. detail?
Inability to measure an energy increase in any planetary system that would account for the “missing heat” is a…. detail?
Antarctic ice setting new records that nearly off set the decline in Arctic ice is a…. detail?
OK, if you’re not being paid for what you write on this blog, I’ll believe you. I’ll have to come up with some other explanation for your mind numbing inability to discuss the facts with any degree of intellectual honesty.
What Did I Tell You!? says:
December 1, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Hoffman you’ve already started trying to claim light handling by a gas is dependent on whether it’s in a submarine’s experimental greenhouse, or a planet.
If you keep barking that Magic Gas at me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmmmm…. ya know, the last time I got suckered into a debate about this it turned out to be Doug Cotton and his Slayer garbage. Doug can’t get my name right either, he calls me Hoffman all the time…..hmmmm…. Yaps about Magic Gas….hmmmm…. He also says things like:
“You haven’t transmitted, captured, and analyzed electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and industrial compounds for money, and never been fired. I have.”
Well Doug (or whichever Slayer acolyte you happen to be), perhaps if you’d done your job properly, you wouldn’t have been fired.
MODS ~ SLAYER ALERT
[Reply: No not Doug Cotton this time – mod]
LazyTeenager:
The slogan “The science is settled” was not coined by the skeptics but by those who share your your views. This slogan has been used as a justification for closing the issue and ignoring the skeptic point of view. Somehow I get the impression that you approve such a goal. If you do not, then you should repudiate the slogan publicly and now. You have not done this. What you have done is claim that “climate skeptic land” has misunderstood the intention of those who use it.
So, LazyTeenager, get out of the sack and do it right: repudiate the use of this slogan and those who employ it. The world of science is watching and waiting.
Your humble and obedient servant, mpainter
To davidmhoffer: What whatdiditellyou wrote was: “You haven’t transmitted, captured, and analyzed electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and industrial compounds for money, and never been fired. I have.”
I think you may have parsed this incorrectly. I read it that he did this stuff and has never been fired.
So, I don’t see him/her as a complete “slayer”. He has measured energy radiation, presumably realizes some of it comes from radiation by CO2, but says that there is no evidence that it is increasing (and perhaps the reverse). The radiative balance is no doubt complex, but the fact (if so) that increasing CO2 has not led to increasing absorption and re-radiation is surely of some interest to those trying to figure out what the heck is going on.
Rich.
New topic: peer review.
I thought I’d share some current peer review experiences. I am trying to publish my first paper in climate science (statistical). I chose a journal which had published most of my reference list, and submitted a manuscript in April (2012). It took them 2 months to email me to say that I had made a small error in the online submission process. I fixed this and resubmitted in July. In October I thought it was about time that I herd something about peer review, but the online system had a negative message on this front.
So I emailed the editor, and she explained that she was finding it hard to find anyone who wanted to review my paper. Apparently there are a lot of papers out there in the AR5 submission window, and I suppose all the cronies are reviewing the other cronies’ papers.
I am definitely not a crony. I have previously failed to get two papers published, the first a statistics paper against my 1978 thesis, and the second a number theory paper in the 90s. So I am not sanguine about getting this one published either. The only reason I am doing it is that the UK Met Office challenged me to. I sent them an earlier version and they said “we’re very busy, to consider your paper properly you should get it into the peer-reviewed literature.”
So wish me luck! Alternatively, you might think that anyone with an existing 0 and 2 count isn’t good enough to get published. Well, if I fail I’ll share it with you here, and then you can judge.
Rich.
I’m curious about something… As we know, the earth is very hot in its interior. Anywhere from Al Gore’s “millions of degrees” to, well, at least hot enough to melt iron and form [Dr. Evil voice] li-quid MAG-ma. As I recall from my physics classes, the only means of transferring heat are via conduction, radiation, or convection. As a result, all of that heat has to pass through the crust — us — on its way out; however, since we are not at those temperatures the rate of heat transfer is slow enough to not cook us up here.
Now, for what I’m curious about. Obviously that’s a lot of heat in there. My degree is in geology, so I’m also very aware of the slowness of the processes involved (in general — once that sloooowly rising magma intrusion makes it to the surface, things happen very quickly indeed). But what conditions would be required for enough more of that heat to be transferred to us and increase the “global average temperature”?
Convection requires hotter (less dense) parts of the material to rise, cool, then sink again. This does not necessarily require that the temperatures are even throughout each plume. Is there any possibility that a particularly hot batch could come along and warm the upper regions enough to make a measurable difference? Has anyone been checking the temps in deep mines around the world to see if there’s any noticeable rise in temperature?
Like I said, I’m just curious and floating my thoughts out there. I just can’t recall geothermal heat fluctuations ever being considered as a factor in global temps.
I was just writing an article on global cooling when I swigged the tipex instead of my coffee. Now I keep getting corrections!
Howdy folks.Not sure if you’re allinterested but a mainstream Scottish paper has run the 28gate story – http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/comment-bbc-bias-more-worrying-than-savile-scandal-1-2659327
See – Owe to Rich
I think you may have parsed this incorrectly. I read it that he did this stuff and has never been fired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On second read, I did parse it incorrectly.
That said, he rants about what he has measured and what I haven’t, though he has no knowledge of what I have or haven’t measured. Itz an argument from authority, a tactic that I take a dim view of. The then rants on hollering “magic gas” over an over again, but never addresses the specifics of the detailed spectroscopy experiment that I directed him to, despite claiming to have expertise in that field. Nor does he address the specifics of the .zip file I pointed him to which explain in detail why the experiment is not valid at the scale of the atmospheric column, which applies directly to the failure of an enclosed submarine being at all representative of the atmospheric column also.
So far all I’ve heard from his in an assertion of his opinion. He has not entered into a discussion of the science at all, and one can only wonder why.
Good Grief, man. Have you ever done a Fourier Transform? There is no standard length of Fourier Transform. It is true that a discrete Fourier Transform done as a fast Fourier Transform (FFT) runs fastest if the data length factors into small prime numbers, and what could be better than a power of 2? But even in this case the actual data might simply be padded with zeros or expanded in some fashion out to a power of two.