Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth

But, but, but……… 97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that man is the primary cause.
Now it turns out to be only 36%. Is this an inverse relationship between CO2 concentration and the number of scientists who believe in concensus?

There’s an entire cadre of critics of this paper already…because the polled professionals belong to APEGGA, otherwise known as the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists of Alberta. “Shills for Big Oil”. Yawn. I don’t belong to APEGGA, never have. I work overseas, so paying a dues to an organization that doesn’t even give you a cool hat is pointless. Regardless, A great many people there are NOT oil-related. But no matter. The shill-brand has gotten out of the bag, and therefore the findings are instantly invalid. (/sarc for safety’s sake). But, I’ll betcha the numbers are correct. People who think for a living tend to despise the Klimate Kooks Klan.

I agree with Mike Bromley. IMO confining this kind of survey to members of organizations like the APPEGA is just asking for criticism. I am also somewhat disappointed that I have never been asked to complete such a survey despite being a professional engineer.

As a former APEGGA member, I’ll state that I have no “big oil” dependencies (other than wanting to have affordable energy) and that I’m as skeptical as anyone I know. I suspect that most of those polled are less dependent upon the petroleum industry than the alarmists are on alarmism.

While I am as big a skeptic as there is and believe that mankind’s contribution is something less than 25% (possibly FAR less), I cringe whenever our “side” brings up the “fastest rebound in the Arctic” meme. It seems a bit disingenuous because of course a higher melt off will bring a more dramatic freeze up. It is sort of like getting the dreaded “most improved” award when you are young. “You still suck, but you have come a long way Johnny!” Ok…that’s all…

“Klimate Kooks Klan”
Poetic alliteration Mike Bromley luv it. Strike one for Canuckistan!
Btw, is it cold in Cowburg and do bears s*7t in the woods?

I’m still amused how they call it “climate change”. One look at this planet’s history shows that the climate has never been stable and has always changed. Sure, from a human point of view climate is long term stable, but what are 2,000 years, for example, when dealing with Earth itself? Nothing. And even in those last 2,000 years we’ve had several climate changes, far bigger than what is happening today and there’s no way that the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods (which were global as one look into Asian history proves without a doubt) were triggered or “made worse” by humans.

CAVEAT EMPTOR
The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection. The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint. Walk into a meeting of alcoholics anonymous and you can find 100% of the people have been drinkers.
Secondly, of the 1077 surveyed, the majority believe warming is partly caused by man.
So, if you read this post and immediately think, I knew it, you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.

Steven Mosher,
What is the problem with an ice-free Arctic? I can only see benefits, such as sharply reduced shipping costs, less fuel used, and shorter transit times.
Give me a scare story, I’m going thru withdrawal.☺

As a Life Member of APEGGA and a member of the first Civil Engieering class to specialize in Water and Pollution at the University of British Columbia, I am not at all surprised by this paper. We learned about “Climate Change” being the norm way back in elementary school. I just wonder whatever happened to our education system? Politicization? Merde.

“Green shirts”… I like it.
And if Michael Mann were to bust in to our house and start trying to peddle his leftist hooey about global warming er climate change, I would say: “Quit what you’re saying. Cease and desist immediately from uttering your fallacious drivel. Because I don’t think it’s right that you green shirts try to push your leftist vision and ideas on the rest of us. At best what you fear-mongers holler about is extreme exaggeration; at worst, it’s an outright fabrication, like your hockey. stick. And without the hockey stick, there’s nothing unusual about current temperatures or the climate, it’s just another day on Planet Earth. Be gone bad Mann!! Before I call the cops!”

Steven Mosher-
“After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback.”
When the sun drops sufficiently low in the sky, there is negative feedback, independent of ice loss. Except for May, June and July, the net radiative forcing is negative.
“Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area ).”
Ice has a thermal conductivity more than 3 times higher than water. It is a lousy insulator. However, ice can reduce heat transport from the underlying water by creating a dead air space between the water surface and the underside of the ice, and/or by providing a shelf upon which an overcoat of insulating low density snow ( as low as 0.03 W/m-K for fresh snow versus 0.6 W/m-K for water and 2 W/m-K for ice) can find a perch.

some things here:
*could we please move away from words like “alarmists” and “denialists”, it just comes off as childish and unprofessional
*the study makes it pretty clear its targetting an “skeptical” group, yet they the majority still believed in humans influence
*why such missleading titles?

Vince Wilkinson..thank you for bringing possible problems with the study to light. Any true skeptic on this board should be encouraged by, not bothered by, your advice to “read beyond the headlines.” Actually looking at the data from such studies and checking whether the conclusions actually follow is at the core of many skeptical posts on this site, so your input is appreciated.
I haven’t had a chance to read referenced study, but could you go into more detail about how the non-controlled nature of the study impacts any of the conclusions cited? What variables do you think should have been controlled that were not?
I should also note that, while your input is appreciated, your tone towards the other readers of this blog is not. Please try to be respectful, even if some responding to you have not been.

Well, if you had absolutely no chance to think on your own and still had to test consensus position on a particular topic of science, correct methodology requires genuine experts of that very field to be excluded from the poll.
If you wanted to know for example, that homeopathy was science or pseudoscience, so it deserved financial support from government on taxpayer’s money, you’d never ask a group of homeopaths if they believed substances diluted until not a single molecule of the supposed agent remained in them had still beneficial effect, would you? Even if you would and found 98% consensus on this issue among them, it would be utterly meaningless.
On the other hand, asking experts of neighboring disciplines like doctors, pharmacologists, biologists, nurses and the like makes sense.
It is the same with climatology. As soon as the scientific value of the basic paradigm of a field, in this case fitting multiple computational models of high complexity to a single run of a unique physical instance is questioned, it is up to experts of neighboring fields to decide its validity. They may not be able to do their own research in that field, but they do have ample background to understand and evaluate the methods applied in the field in question.

Climate Science is settled. There is now no reason to continue to fund research.
Time to remove it from the US federal budget

Steven Mosher,
I can’t answer all those strawman arguments, I have things to do!
You didn’t cut & paste the words you were responding to, and I’m not willing to re-read every comment to try and figure out what you mean. All I asked was:
What is the problem with an ice-free Arctic? I can only see benefits, such as sharply reduced shipping costs, less fuel used, and shorter transit times.
I didn’t try to “prove” anything, I didn’t take an extreme position, and I wasn’t arguing. I was just asking.
“We don’t know yet” is not a good answer. It is the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy, and it is used to try and prop up “what if” arguments. The fact is that there are no credible scare stories resulting from an ice-free Arctic.
I still see nothing alarming about an ice-free Arctic. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Naturally. And I can find no verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that human activity has anything at all to do with it.
• • •
Oflot,
H.L. Mencken wrote:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
What else would you call people whose every effort is to alarm the public over an imaginary scare?
• • •
A.D. Everard,
Thanks.

Mosher: “Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution.
===========
Mosh, in your opinion are we going to see the “dust bowl” more or less frequently?

I love it when the likes of Vince Wilkinson come on. That awful squealing noise he made is certain sure proof that we are hitting the targets…again and again and again.
We haven’t won the war yet, but we’re starting to win battles.

Bravo! D.B. Stealey at 1:14pm
I would love to see Josh work a lot of that info into a cartoon.
Perhaps with a generic “Vince Wilkinson” with imploding brain.

Of course, most readers and commenters here know that “consensus” has little to do with the actual science. So posts such as this are fun because it throws it back in the face of such extreme warmers as commented above. Also, it brings out the “closet” warmers!
Keep it up, WUWT. More, quicker, sooner!

Steven Mosher says:
And chris “Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.
reading is fundamental
——————-
Yes it is Steve, but if you had said that “the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator” , that would have been much more accurate than saying “Ice acts as an insulator”.
Writing is fundamental

“with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
and when was the previous record? In 2008, the year after the previous minimum. Which makes sense: if you have a low minimum, when the ice cap refreezes, of course you are going to have a record rate of ice formation. Sort of a silly point to argue, unless you are into misinformation.

Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”
Perfectly normal and in fact expected .
=========================================
Expected with benefit of hindsight?

So, Vince, 36% of respondents of a vested interest survey may have issues, even if there’s more than 1000 of them, yet less than 100 respondents of a similar survey with a poorly framed set of questions returning a 97% hit rate is gospel truth, is it?
Bye bye!

I think that usually when “consensus” is used in regards to climate change it is often
followed by ” of climatologists”.

It would be helpful if anyone reporting on a poll of “Scientists and Engineers” would report numbers of respondents, and poll results, separately for each group. Science and Engineering are different, though closely related professions, with overlapping, but non-identical skill sets. Each historically has informed the other, and applied scientists are often a bit of each. A good engineer might make a good scientist, and vice versa, but there’s no guarantee; I’ve seen more than a couple from each group that don’t fully grasp what the other group does. Any divergence of opinions between the two would be interesting; it would also be interesting to know whether the opinions of a small group of scientists were being lost among those of a much larger group of engineers.

Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“That’s why in the final analysis area and extent are not the best metrics for understanding the total picture. That’s why volume in the end is a better metric.”
The other half of the picture is that there are reliable techniques of measurement for area and extent but only new and untested techniques for volume. The satellites bounce something off the surface of the ice. One uses a laser I believe. They are measuring the relative bumpiness of the ice and using it as a proxy for volume. Obviously, such techniques must be supplemented by some other technique such as using sonar to measure the bumpiness underneath the ice and then the two sets of results must be combined in a grid that accurately matches surface to undersea. At this time, the undersea measurements are only spotty and only enough to allow one to conclude that the surface measurements are plausible as measures of volume. They cannot be said to confirm the surface estimates of volume.
However, even if the satellites and their undersea partners proved to be perfect, they give us a picture of volume that goes back only ten years at most. Many faithful believe that the old ice was bumpy above and below the surface and that all the extent recovered since the summer is thin. Such a belief is nothing more than convenient mythology. No one knows. The relevant measurements beyond ten years into the past simply do not exist. Some true believers might say that today’s satellite and undersea measurements support the view that old ice is bumpy and high volume while new ice is smooth and fine. But why bother gathering evidence to support what must remain a myth?

kajajuk;
Well boys and girls as this intellect sits on the fence looking at both crowds squawking it just goes hmmmm.
>>>>>>>>>
Well Kajajuk, if you’re going to jump into this forum casting yourself as an “intellect” looking down your nose at us “squawkers” I can suggest that you may be in for a rough ride. You may want to begin by getting your assertions correct and doing a bit of research:
1. If you think the sun is THE major driver of climate, then I suggest you research the “faint sun hypothesis” and you may want to review articles and comments (and responses to) by Leif Svalgaard. You may discover that the topic has been discussed in considerable detail, and that your assertion is premature.
2. Less ice to reflect sunlight is too simplistic. Under a range of circumstances the albedo of water exceeds that of ice. Soot collects on ice, but not on water.
3. The notion that unbalanced ice formation in the Antarctic might affect the rotational inertia of the planet sent me reaching for a calculator but I had to stop and grab tissues instead due to a cola up the nose moment. I decided to just suggest that given your “intellect” that you do the calculations yourself to see just how silly a notion that is. By doing it yourself you’ll learn a lot more than me telling you.
4. If polar bears were actually starving and drowning in any numbers your statement would be true. But it isn’t. The polar bear population has doubled to quadrupled (depending on whose numbers you use) in the last couple of decades, and the stories of starving and drowning bears have been debunked as isolated incidents presented fraudulently on this and other sites.
5. Russian lakes boiling off methane? In what quantities and how is it different that frozen lakes emitting methane from rotting debris in the past? Birds changing migration patterns? That’s what resulted in the acid rain mythology….and it also isn’t new. Viruses and molds scourging wildlife? Sorry, on that one you’ll need to cite a study or article to back up your assertion, and I’ll bet it gets picked to shreds in nothing flat if you do. The biosphere by many measures is healthier than it has been in a long time, much healthier than the LIA some 400 years ago, and a long list of species that were on the brink of extinction have recovered.
6. There are several recent articles on this site about the Palmer Drought Index and the most recent studies that are going to be cited by the next UN report which pretty much show that nothing unusual is going on regarding water “distribution”.
7. Your remark about weather satellites being launched with a sarcastic sneer about being for cell phones…. well that’s just the kind of humour one expects from an “intellect”.

Kajajuk says:
February 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm
“There simply has not been enough . . . ”
“* tree lines on all continents are advancing northwards; hmmmm”
First quote above: There is enough science, physics mostly, that says CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause environmental catastrophes. If you think there is, explain how the mechanisms work.
Second quote above: Please read the linked to paper . . .
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf
. . . that shows prior warmth and higher latitude tree line in Canada. Then explain why we should be worried? hmmmm
Also, most of your other arguments can be shown to be seriously flawed.
If it was warmer before, and it seems to you to be warmer now, why would you find less ice on the Arctic Ocean in late summer to “seem strange?”
And don’t go back to the Milankovitch cycles – they are too long term for you to claim “the globe should be well on its way to a minor glacial period for the next 10,000 years or so.” That idea and that number are not backed by any explanatory mechanisms – just folks looking and commenting on things they don’t understand. Here is an interesting paper, though:
http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/GerardWeb/Publications_files/Roe_Milankovitch_GRL06.pdf

Hi Jeff,
The citation about the Milutin Milankovitch theory was to suggest the known measure of the cycles within cycles and in particular i was referring to the figure on the last page where the amount of energy from the sun is the addition of each of the contributions . If you start at zero and move to the left, about 10,000 years there is a reinforced minimum with the precessional influence and the obliquity (or wobble) contribution as well as a downward trend from the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit. This suggests a minimum insolation or irradiance from the sun, hence a glacial trend. i.e. This is the trend without human influence. A type of standard, maybe?

again..this time with line breaks fixed:
Steven Mosher says: February 17, 2013 at 1:23 pm
The arctic summer volumes, area and extent continue to decline.
Yep, must be getting a bit warmer. Question is, what is the cause?
There may have been times in human history when it was less. Data here is less certain than data in the past 30 years. So, one should not go around as you have, claiming with certitude that there has been less ice. That’s a bad as alarmists claiming the loss is unprecedented.
Nope, there IS evidence, and it would be quite a stretch of the mind (what with ice core data etc) that this was not the case. Whereas the alarmist statement usually directly states or implies the phrase “in the satellite era”. That is just meaningless in the greater scheme of things. When they are more “all encompassing” in their time scales, there is actually no evidence to support the statement, and quite some evidence for the contrary case.
There are many potential causes for this, Among them: changes in SST, changes in circulation patterns, changes in wind, soot, changes in clouds, salinity, and yes changes in warming. For example, in the 30s when it was warmer low and behold there is some evidence (not proof) of less ice. And when it was warmer in the Holocene, you guessed it.. less ice. Did AGW cause all the loss? Don’t be silly. Does increased warmth have nothing to do with it? Don’t be silly.
Gotta agree with every point. You don’t sound like an alarmist here, Mosh.
The causes for ice gain and loss in the north pole and south pole are different. For example: you see increased ice in the south. Does soot have anything to do with that? haha. The point is you can’t really compare the north and south without attending to a host of different factors that can drive the metrics in opposite directions over short time scales.
Gotta agree with every point. Don’t get the soot reference, as it seems quite feasible to me that soot effects may be greater in the north, what with China and polar airline routes. But, anyway, you don’t sound like an alarmist here either.
So …. Here I ask a question. What the hell IS Mosh arguing?
That CO2 may contribute some to the current warming? Tick.
That it is very unclear at this stage how serious or not, this is or may be? Tick.
That we really don’t have enough data to date to be sure of what is happening? Tick.
That embarking on worldwide precipitate action on the basis that “…it MAY BE TOO LATE and doing something, anything is better than nothing and besides some of us are going to get very wealthy outta this …” is currently looking like a really dumb idea? Tick
That everyone else is a complete dummy and only Mosh really understands the issues and the science and anyway he’s not going to state anything very clearly or explain himself because you dummies would not understand it anyway? Tick
Please tell me if I have anything wrong.

Water vapour map:
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV
Land temperature map:
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MOD11C1_M_LSTDA
Sea surface temperature map:
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M
Ice cover changes at the poles:
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice_15da

Ice acts as an insulator. Refrigerator evaporators must be ‘defrosted’ every few hours otherwise the ice that forms on them prevents heat transfer. If ice can prevent the transfer of heat in your freezer then I humbly propose that it can block the transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere.

Kajajuk says: February 18, 2013 at 12:54 am
“…. maybe “century” storms every couple of years in Australia is just a really bad roll of the dice, ….[….]….maybe the cyclone that hit Australia in the north and then went the “wrong” way around the continent was just the result of strange heatwave (its happened before)…..”
Nothing odd happening in Australia …it has all happened before … business as usual…
Here ya go: check out cyclones decade by decade; http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=2006&eyear=2006&loc=0
And, it’s all happened before even prior to those records:
Here is an Australian report showing we should expect a super cyclone every 200 to 300 years, not every 1000 as previously suspected;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413508a0.html
“….. determine the intensity of prehistoric tropical cyclones over the past 5,000 years from ridges of detrital coral and shell deposited above highest tide and terraces that have been eroded into coarse-grained alluvial fan deposits. ………. We infer that the deposits were formed by storms with recurrence intervals of two to three centuries and we show that the cyclones responsible must have been of extreme intensity (central pressures less than 920 hPa). …. Our estimate of the frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..)….”
Droughts? In Australia? Well, there’s no end of them: Some of the worst droughts on the Australian continent occurred in 1895-1903, 1911-1916, and in 1918-1920. Later, there have been some pretty bad droughts in 1982-1983, 1995-1996, and 2002-2003.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/droughthistory.html
These guys touting doom and disaster might even turn out to be correct in the long run. But, they sure as hell don’t know that yet, and they know they don’t know. The very fact they lie, exaggerate and propagandize to this extent leads me to doubt their integrity and motives in the most serious way.

Steven Mosher says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“….That’s why volume [of ice] in the end is a better metric…”
////////////////////////////////////
But it is area not volume that is material to albedo, and a thin layer of ice is just as effective as a thick layer of ice for preventing heat loss interchange form ocean to atmosphere.
But in the end, since we only have a snapshot of data, the extent of data is woefully inadequate from which to make any meaningful comparisons and extrapolations.

Kajajuk says:
February 17, 2013 at 11:45 pm
hmmm,
David… i was being poetic not condescending and i offered, ad hoc, observations of information that i have come across…the facts are not mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Condescending is what you were, and not only are the facts not yours, they aren’t even facts. As for trolls who insist they are on the fence while spewing one alarmist line of claptrap after another, let’s just say you’re not the first to try such a strategy.
As for your response to me about ice and inertial mass, your first comment was very specific. It was increase in ice in one part of Antarctica versus decrease in another. When I scoffed at the notion and suggested you produce the math to show this could possibly be significant, you changed the problem. Now you claim to be talking about the entire ice sheet melting and the water somehow gathering mostly in the tropics. Again, lots of arm waving and vague references to integral tables, but no timelines, no mass/inertia calculations, just arm waving.

davidmhoffer says: February 18, 2013 at 6:00 am
re Kajajuk says: February 17, 2013 at 11:45 pm
“…….. the entire ice sheet melting and the water somehow gathering mostly in the tropics….”
This is an intriguing and recent finding. I have commented on it a few times in WUWT but it has not caught anyone’s interest. It is interesting because it means the effects of warmer seas on Greenland and Antarctica would be lessened as ice caps lost mass (ie, a self limiting mechanism) … apparently the effects on dropping sea levels towards the poles would be very significant. (we are talking perhaps hundreds of metres of sea level fall there).
Here is a video by Jerry Mitrovica, (very much of alarmist bent, but he is a good speaker and it is a very interesting talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w
MSM article on global gravitational effects of ice melt here; http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt
Technical article here: Evolution of a coupled marine ice sheet–sea level model Gomez etal JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, F01013, doi:10.1029/2011JF002128, 2012
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/evolution_ice_sealevel.pdf
(Note, in the video at 5.44 he shows ancient coral structures to demonstrate that sea levels have NOT been rising constantly and smoothly since the start of the Holocene. Fair enough. But what he DOES demonstrate is that about 5000 years ago – ie the Holocene Warm Period, at least in the equatorial pacific, the sea levels were up to 3 meters higher than they are now … not so great for the longer term hockey stick story? The theoretical alarmist take on this is that the sea floor started to sink about 5000 years ago (once the last of the glacial ice melted?) …. but, given Mitrovica’s and Gomez’s work above, it might just have got colder after the Holocene warm period and more polar ice means lower equatorial sea levels..{note, the models had worked out the amount of seafloor fall before this new data was published}. NOAA tells us it was not warmer in the Mid Holocene Warm period, ‘except for summer and in the Northern Hemisphere…..’ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html )

Re: 3 metre higher sea levels 5000 years ago, theories on falling ocean floors, and NOAA telling us that the Mid Holocene Warm Period was not much hotter than now: This from Wikipedia (yeah, I know … but considering Connolley has trodden all over there it is all the more significant! … and I do include the reference.)

The Hans Tausen Iskappe (ice cap) in Peary Land (northern Greenland) was drilled in 1977 with a new deep drill to 325 m. The ice core contained distinct melt layers all the way to bedrock indicating that Hans Tausen Iskappe contains no ice from the last glaciation; i.e., the world’s northernmost ice cap melted away during the post-glacial climatic optimum and was rebuilt when the climate got colder some 4000 years ago.

Dansgaard W. Frozen Annals Greenland Ice Sheet Research. Odder, Denmark: Narayana Press. pp. 124. ISBN 87-990078-0-0.
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/publications/FrozenAnnals.pdf/

well quoted Markx…”Our estimate of the frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..)”
I do estimate that all is well, sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops everywhere…you know even an out of the ordinary storm system in 2010, 2011, and 2013 does not prove anything really.
So your fanatical nay saying is just as warranted as the alarmist rhetoric which should, i estimate, lead us to the bliss of a conquered divide. On every issue!
Or an apparent lengthening and accelerating frequency of drought from your own post is in my estimation not even worthy of investigation, or further estimation, since we all know what must be true; so why even bother to wonder or question…like a hundred years ago science is done, we have conquered the apple harvest and it is unblemished…amen!
a system as complex as global climate cannot be deduced well from ten years of direct measure, but likely 100 in my humble estimation; the estimations from indirect means can only give us wonder to explore the truth. Not dancing along in our favorite parade.
I am not a doomsayer, just a curious mind perceiving more than a few fascinating trends; least of which is the possibility of a warming planet (when it should be “cooling”). A possibility that is credible, albeit not definitive, by virtue of considering the likely ‘estimation’ of what a warming Earth would entail; then designing experiments and metrics to validate or invalidate…likely learning something in the process, as well as developing technologies…oh my a security guard is approaching, later dude…
“Nothing to see here folks, just move along; and please put your cell phones in your pocket with the GPS on and locked or I may have to detain you on suspicion of being a terrorist.
And check out are page on faceb00k…”

This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.
Henry says
well, we knew this didn’t we?
arctic ice will gain again from 2015-2038
just like it did from 1925-1945
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

David… it is not a strategy. In the blogs of club alarmist i argue nay.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/
And one of my favourite links…when poking the fire;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
After ten years of this sport i am leaning on the warming side, but not ready to sing along with chicken little, just yet.
am ready to;
* map the Earth’s geodesic every six months
* use GPS to measure any tilting of the continental margins
* measure the surface temperature of the oceans, globally and dynamically, as well as the surface temperature of the continents
* investigate fanatically all species die offs
* measure the radiative output of the Sun as well as the spectrum of radiation dynamically
* measure the energy flux from the Earth into space
* measure the incidence of radio nucleotides in/on glaciers
This could go on and on. I do periodic searches but find only ads and proprietary articles or shamefully biased articles with speculation and press releases of research intent (with no follow up, even after years) with much speculation…sign of the times i guess as science unravels as commodity
I must say that this blog is wonderful, Great comeback links i have enjoyed reading. No selective censorship to craft the threads; very cool and sadly rare.
peace out

Hi HenryP
There is a trend of increasing sea ice coverage in Antarctica;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369
I found your link hard to follow. And one more…
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Reaches_New_Maximum_Extent_999.html
I am trying to find an article i came across that states that the Arctic sea ice varies between 2 and 10 million square kilometers, but i cannot find it…
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/maps-of-average-sea-ice-extent-in-the-arctic-summer-september-and-winter-march-and-in-the-antarctic-summer-february-and-winter-september_1167
Closest i could find, but it is dated

MieScatter says:
February 18, 2013 at 1:18 am
Hey justthefacts, have you seen these facts?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No but I have seen this article by By Nir Shaviv on his paper accepted in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The oceans as a calorimeter
…It turns out that there are three different types of data sets from which the ocean heat content can derived. The first data is is that of direct measurements using buoys. The second is the ocean surface temperature, while the third is that of the tide gauge record which reveals the thermal expansion of the oceans. Each one of the data sets has different advantages and disadvantages.
The ocean heat content, is a direct measurement of the energy stored in the oceans. However, it requires extended 3D data, the holes in which contributed systematic errors. The sea surface temperature is only time dependent 2D data, but it requires solving for the heat diffusion into the oceans, which of course has its uncertainties (primarily the vertical turbulent diffusion coefficient). Last, because ocean basins equilibrate over relatively short periods, the tide gauge record is inherently integrative. However, it has several systematic uncertainties, for example, a non-neligible contribution from glacial meting (which on the decadal time scale is still secondary).
Nevertheless, the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations.….

Hi beng,
[snip . . as requested . . mod]

{you are spamming the thread so I am removing your previous identical posts . . mod]
Please indulge me with one more attempt to get the blockquotes correct. thanks.
I criticized this post by saying…

It is clear to me that the folks at IBD (and the folks here at WUWT who authored this post) either did not actually read “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” or did not understand it.
JustTheFacts responded with some quotes form the original journal paper and noted…

one might deduce that I had read some portion of the paper. In terms of understanding the paper, the data in Table 4 on page 1492 and the conclusions are quite clear, well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative.

Yes, yes , you are almost right about table 4. The point of the paper was the that these in Alberta leaned to the skeptical when it comes to global warming. That is why Alberta was chosen. That table is labeled “Frames’ relative positioning (percent) within their organization and industry.” Alberta was the laboratory, so to speak, in which the minds of the “deniers” (their word, not mine) could be probed and examined.
The important part of the paper, from the author’s perspective, is about “Framing experts’ identities,” where they try to figure out why these experts think the way they do. That is the type of approach that social scientists take – they want to see what makes you tick. That is why the social sciences probably should not be called sciences at all. It is easier for them to make up stories about why people think the way they do based on their “identities” and “relative positioning” rather than examining the scientific merits of their arguments.
If you really think that this paper supports your (and my) view on expert opinion concerning global warming, I suggest you re-read the “discussion and conclusion.” Here are some highlights…

Nor is this merely a binary debate of whether climate change is ‘science or science fiction’. There are more nuanced intermediary frames that are constructed by these professionals. Indeed, by differing in their normalization and rationalization of nature, they vary in their identification with and defensiveness against others, and in their mobilization of action.

Get it? They say deniers (their word, not mine) are “defensive.”
Or this. These professionals…

…engage in identity and boundary work – to varying degrees – to legitimate themselves as experts and de-legitimate opponents as non-experts, while establishing the cognitive authority of their version of science versus others’ non-science. Defense can result from different worldviews and from identity threats.

Or this.

Our findings give greater granularity in understanding which professionals are more likely to resist, why and how they will resist, and who is more likely to be successful…
… an interest-based discourse coalition may be formed that has the potential to overcome the defensiveness.

Get it? Resistance may not be futile – but we’re working on it.
JustTheFacts, I have seen you do some good work here on WUWT. But you blew it this time. Please take this as constructive criticism.
There are lessons to be learned
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/science-or-science-fiction-professionals-discursive-construction-of-climate-change/

kajajuk
I do periodic searches but find only ads and proprietary articles or shamefully biased articles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest you go through the extensive resources on this site under the resource tab. You’ll find direct access to all the data that you claim you cannot find there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/

[dude . . you are drunk . .come back tomorrow . . mod]

before i start on my reading list i would like to say very emphatically,
I care greatly for the natural world; when the animals start to higher ground, i am on their tails.
So to speak. Then sit upon the hill and watch the show along the coast unfold.
I did seem like a really long deep quake???
blossoming wildlife would be marvelous,
perhaps it is time for sustainable cities toward the 60th,
and a UN “vatican” on Ross Island, Antartica

Kajajuk says:
Can you provide links for these please. (unless I missed a “sarc” tag)
“* tree lines on all continents are advancing northwards; hmmmm
* polar bears seem to be dying of starvation and drowning to death; hmmmm, that”s weird
* lakes in Russia boiling off methane
, birds are changing their migration or not migrating,
virus’ and molds scourging wildlife all about…
* seems to be an increase in water redistribution all over the place”

D. Patterson says:
February 18, 2013 at 7:11 am

The rapid refreeze is a very significant indicator with respect to the question of whether or not global Warming is responsible for the diminished Arctic ice extents. If there really was AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), the multi-seasonal changes would necessarily result in significantly reduced refreezing of the melted Arctic icee cap and the observed record ice extents in Antarctica could not be occurring.

Increased greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the air to trap more solar radiation. This is especially prominent in the arctic summer, when the sun shines most of the time. During the arctic winter, when there is little to no sunlight, there will be little to no solar heat to trap. Any increase in winter temperatures, which would lead to decreased winter ice, would have to come from air or water currents. How does increased heat transport from these stack up against trapped heat? You’ll need to address this before you can have any confidence in your conclusions.
Antarctica is a different, more complicated case. The climate there is strongly influenced by the circumpolar current. which is currently (um, now) very strong. This is thought to be warming some parts of Antarctica and cooling others. There is also some thought that this is driven by stratospheric cooling, given the loss of ozone in the ozone hole.
This seems to lead to increased formation of sea ice, which freezes each winter and melts, almost completely, each summer. (Note, parenthetically, that winter sea ice will have very little impact in terms of any ice-albedo feedback.) Antarctic land ice, on the other hand, seems to have been diminishing for about all of the time we’ve observed it. This ice won’t contribute to an albedo feedback any time soon, but does contribute to sea level rise.
The Antarctic situation is quite interesting, but given its complexity, you might want to wait until you have the Artic process straight before tackling it.

barry says:
February 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm
——————————————–
You seem to imply that ‘industry’ experts’ are no more to be trusted than their counterparts, ‘Greenpeace’ experts, but the IPCC is the objective and qualified party in the middle. I don’t think this is in fact so. Arguments concerning the motives of industry experts certainly apply to the IPCC bureaucracy, and if I remember correctly the bureaucracy selects the Lead Authors. I haven’t read Donna LaFramboise’s book yet, but I strongly suspect she raises further arguments regarding IPCC credibility there that might be worth examining.

Kajajuk says: February 18, 2013 at 9:03 am
Re: “frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..)”
Kajajuk, our records only really go back about 200 years, we don’t even know if we have seen one of these. Maybe the 1899 Cyclone Mahina which hit Baturst Bay in North Queensland came close.
“…I do estimate that all is well, sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops everywhere…you know even an out of the ordinary storm system in 2010, 2011, and 2013 does not prove anything really….”
Where? When and how defined? By your own statements below, do you really think you can use the term “Out of ordinary storm systems ..”?
You state yourself “…a system as complex as global climate cannot be deduced well from ten years of direct measure, but likely 100 in my humble estimation …” I largely agree with you here, except I’m pretty sure 100 years does mean a lot either.
“… your fanatical nay saying…” I quoted a few facts. With all due respect you should perhaps tone down the soapboxing and try doing the same.
“… is just as warranted as the alarmist rhetoric which should, i estimate, lead us to the bliss of a conquered divide. On every issue!…”
I’m not sure quite what you are saying here, but you are either alarmed or you ain’t. And you, my friend sound at least extremely concerned. 🙂
“….Or an apparent lengthening and accelerating frequency of drought from your own post is in my estimation not even worthy of investigation, or further estimation, since we all know what must be true; so why even bother to wonder or question…”
The key word here is “apparent”. Time scale issue to consider again, perhaps? American drought indices show no change, I’m not sure Australia uses a meaningful drought index.
“..I am not a doomsayer, just a curious mind perceiving more than a few fascinating trends; least of which is the possibility of a warming planet (when it should be “cooling”)…”
Sure, I agree here. It (the planet) is perhaps warming to some extent. The questions are; over what time scale, and is it different this time? Temperature aside, we can see the reduction in summer ice extent in the Arctic. Definitely warmer there, in summer, but when did this last occur (we don’t know), and then, what about the Antarctic?
“..A possibility that is credible, albeit not definitive, by virtue of considering the likely ‘estimation’ of what a warming Earth would entail; then designing experiments and metrics to validate or invalidate…likely learning something in the process, as well as developing technologies…..”
This is all happening, and I think it is a good thing. We will learn by it. But no-one benefits from the alarmist approach of “.. we already understand this, it is disastrous, we must act now or it will be too late!”.
You know, and I know, that they know they don’t really know much yet.
We should ‘hasten slowly’, measure and study, and discuss openly.

Justthefacts – The 97% number comes from the Doran and Zimmerman 2010 (D&Z2010) study. It polled “10,257 Earth scientists” from
“all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities.”
This is a more representative survey of scientists than one professional organization’s members from one part of one country. D&Z2010 also had 3146 responses, or a response rate of over 30.7%, which is far better than 1077 out of 44,000 members (according to Lefsrud and Meyer), or about 2.4%. Furthermore, when you run the mathematics on the margin of error and confidence level of D&Z2010, you find that 77 respondents is more than sufficient to measure opinion when the opinions are so wildly skewed.
For a standard 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level (ie a 1 in 20 chance that the actual results will be outside the +/- 5% margin of error), D&Z2010 would have needed a sample size of just 39 super-experts to accurately determine what 97.4% of the hypothetical 100,000 super-experts thought. Alternatively, for a 95% confidence level and a sample size of 79 respondents, the margin of error would be +/- 3.5% (for the same 100,000 population). Alternatively again, for a 5% margin of error and a sample size of 79, the confidence level is 99.45%.
However you parse the mathematics, Taylor’s post about Lefsrud and Meyer is simply wrong. As is your claim about D&Z2010.
As for the New York Times, they accurately reported what the Anderegg study said. Taylor did not. And thew New York Time does run corrections when errors are pointed out to them – Taylor has not.

davidmhoffer says:
February 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Brian Angliss;
and 84% of survey respondents were engineers, not scientists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I see comments like this and I wonder…. what do people like you think engineers study in order to get their degree? Calligraphy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m going to answer my own question since I’m pretty certain Angliss won’t respond.
Electrical engineers study mostly calculus and physics, lots and lots of physics.
Mechanical engineers study mostly calculus and physics, lots and lots of physics.
Civil engineers study mostly calculus and physics, lots and lots of physics.
Chemical engineers study mostly calculus and chemistry and some physics
Geological engineers study mostly calculus and geology and some physics
Get the picture Brian? The difference between a scientist and an engineer is what? I’ll answer that too.
When a scientist screws up the science, their paper gets withdrawn or debunked.
When an engineer screws up the science, telescopes have to be retrofitted with eye glasses at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. Companies go bankrupt. Environmental disasters happen. Buildings collapse. People die.
Which is why engineers don’t have the unmitigated gall to produce graphs with no error bars and pretend that it is science.

Brian Angliss says:
February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Wayne Delbeck and Davidmhoffer – I’m an electrical engineer myself with a Master’s Degree and 15 years of professional experience, so I know very well what engineers study, and I’m not about to cast aspersions on any engineer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yet you did exactly that. Your suggestion reads pure and simple that engineers are not qualified to comment on climate science, yet “scientists” are. That right there is the second largest problem with the climate science debate. The first is the unbelievable gall of producing results with no error bars and claiming them to be definitive. The second is “deciding” that an engineer well versed in radiative physics shouldn’t have an opinion but a physicist with the exact same training should.
I had this same debate with Jan Perlw1tz of NASA who insisted that Briffa’s last paper (which debunks that precious hockey stick that the IPCC relied upon for so long) could not be correctly interpreted by people who weren’t “climate scientists”. I asked that he identify a single aspect of the paper that could not be understood by someone with first year math and stats. He ran away like a little sissy because the truth of the matter is that there is NOTHING in that paper that someone with first year math skills could not understand.
Your precious survey is just another example of the alarmist “scientists” defining anyone who agrees with them as being a scientists and anyone who disagrees as being “unqualified”
I have no degree at all sir. If you’d like to cross swords with me in the area of radiative physics and the greenhouse effect, by all means give it a go. Let’s see what YOU have.
Or are you not “qualified”? In which case, how do you determine who is?

davidmhoffer – as you point out, electrical engineers study “calculus and physics, lots and lots of physics,” just like mechanical engineers, et al. And that’s true.
But as an EE myself, I studied quantum mechanics and optics. That doesn’t mean I understand the physics of chemical reactions. Mechanical engineers study the physical properties of materials like spring force, friction, and hardness. That doesn’t mean they understand the physics of electron flow. And so on.
Having studied electrical engineering myself, I know what kind of physics I was taught. And it was nothing resembling what is required to truly understand atmospheric physics as well as a meteorologist or a climatologist does. In my day job working in aerospace, I work with hundreds of engineers and scientists, and the only ones who truly understand atmospheric physics are the ones who do it day and day out and/or who came out of college with at least a BSci in a field related to atmospheric physics.
On the other hand, I know a huge number of engineers and scientists who think they understand it, but don’t.

justthefacts – that’s a fair point about Einstein. But the independent scientist is a rarity these days – science has become as much a profession as engineering or teaching. I think that’s a good thing, by and large, since most fields of scientific study are either so large that no single person can understand it all, or so specialized that it takes years or decades of dedicated work to have an impact, or both.
My point about the broad definition of still holds, however – there comes a point where you cannot simply include everyone who uses the scientific method as a “scientist” without making the term meaningless. There are engineers who are scientists, and vice versa, but most engineers are not scientists and most scientists are not engineers. Again, both professions have related but quite different skill sets.

Brian Angliss says: February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm
“……After all, would you call a medical doctor a scientist in the same way a chemist or biologist or meteorologist is? How about a veterinarian? …[…]…All of those professions and more use the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and drawing conclusions, but none of them are practicing scientists. And neither are most engineers….”
Ah, you assume too much sir. Take the humble veterinarian. There are many roles filled by those in such a profession, all the way from someone in a clinic dealing with pets to those in the intensive animal industries, immersed in spreadsheets, trials, replicates, and statistics. Then you have the epidemiologists, usually government employed. Not to mention those in research in every major university in the world. Same goes for medicos.
I think you may be right about not being able to compare engineers to practicing scientists. It is my experience that engineers are the most analytical and practical professionals I have encountered, adapting their most easily to many unusual situations. (disclaimer, I ain’t a engineer!)

time lows in winter seasons at high altitude cannot be understood with first year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
should have read latitude, not altitude. Well in retrospect…. both.

The 1077 pareticipants in the survey were a self selecting group who decided to respond out of 40,000 potential participants.
Self selecting surveys are nototoriusly unreliable as the motivated (for whatever reason) take the effort to respond. They are vulnerable to group manipulation and answers based on self interest.
In this case the fact that the respondents are involved in the fossil fuel industry is a loaded set of potential respondents in the first place. And 70% of respondents are not even scientists, they are engineers.
The authors of the paper recognise these problems, but their paper is not concerned with accurately getting the numbers of participants who agree or disagree with the AGW. They are concerned with studying the reasoning of those who fall into various atitudinal groups.
From the Abstract:
…In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizesexpertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionalityand metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessmentof the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, relatedindustries, government regulators, and their professional association.
Keywords
climate change, defensive institutional work, emotion, expertise, framing, metaphor, petroleum industry

Gail Combs, that’s interesting. Since we have recently gone through an extended solar minimum and a sputtering start to the new cycle, then the fact that ARGO shows a continuing rise in heat content is even more spectacular then?

Donald L Klipstein says:
February 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm
The three lines in the graph that begin with 1997 or 1997.1 appear to
me as cherrypicked …..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The cherry picking was done by the CAGW alarmists. We just counted back from the present.
The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled ‘The State Of The Climate’ and can be read at
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
It says

ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109

Dr. Phil Jones – 5 July 2005
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
Dr. Phil Jones – 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.
CO2 and temperature are not correlated. This is a direct plot of temp anomaly vs CO2: http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/1993-2012_zps7947e219.jpg
Solar Insolation does: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/eemian_greenland.jpg?w=640
Also see Nir Shaviv’s paper

Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter, one can quantify the solar climate link and establish that an amplification mechanism (such as the cosmic ray climate link) must exist. Anyone thinking that only the solar irradiance variations are important (e.g., the IPCC scientists) should read this.

Shaviv shows a link between solar 11 yr cycle and ocean heat in his peer-reviewed paper.

Brian Angliss;
But as an EE myself, I studied quantum mechanics and optics. That doesn’t mean I understand the physics of chemical reactions. Mechanical engineers study the physical properties of materials like spring force, friction, and hardness. That doesn’t mean they understand the physics of electron flow. And so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What an utter cop out.
The formulas that describe voltage, resistance, capacitance and inductance are pretty much the same as the formulas that describe force, friction, springs and fly wheels. K(e)= 1/2 mv^2. K(c)= 1.2 cv^2. Once you study one field of physics making the move to another becomes easier and easier. Not to mention that in a discussion of radiative physics you try and distract everyone by yapping about chemical reactions. Sorry bud, in the climate debate, the chemical reaction, conversion of carbon to CO2 to result in a doubling of CO2, has already happened, so even if engineers understood zippo about chemistry, the point is moot (which you well know)
But you didn’t answer my question, did you? SB Law is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with P in w/m2 and T in degrees K.
Are you seriously going to tell me that an EE with a P Eng can’t figure out how to use this formula because you never studied radiative physics? You are unable to enter into a discussion as to who that formula shows in regard spatial/temporal distribution of warming being biased to night time lows in winter seasons in high latitudes? You are incapable of having a discussion that changes to day time highs, in summer, in low latitudes must be by comparison diminished?
As an EE P. Eng, are you capable of applying that one formula to show that cold regions will warm more than warm regions, making the temperature of the earth more uniform? As an EE P.Eng I’d think you would be capable of understanding the wind is driven by pressure differential (like current is driven by voltage differential) and pressure differential is minimized by a more uniform global temperature (like hooking up batteries in parallel with large voltage differences versus batteries in parallel with small voltage differences) and hence a warmer world should feature fewer severe weather events, not more? Really, the concepts are beyond your ken as an EE P Eng? Seriously? I’ve been banging that drum for 10 years and the leaked IPCC AR5 report says I was right and they were wrong the whole time.
I with no degree can understand ohms and farads and voltage as well as friction, momentum and springs as well as SB Law, Planck and absorption spectra, but you, with your EE and P. Eng are not? Seriously?
An engineer who studied calculus, quantum mechanics and optics who can’t make the leap to calculus, quantum mechanics and SB Law? What;s the difference between the atmospheric window and a band pass filter? You do remember what a band pass filter is don’t you? Are the concepts so foreign that you can’t understand them? Or did you fail to even try?
Frankly, if an EE P. Eng wants to stand up and say that he is incapable of understanding these concepts, then all I can suggest is that you are a victim of self imposed ignorance.

More information showing the Global Warming Consensus is a Myth from “The Conversation” of all places.

Warwick Wakefield
The first statement that the climate catastrophists make is that “the science is in and all the relevant scientists agree.” The impression is created that the only people who disagree are ignorant, knuckle dragging, sister shagging, types believe that homeopathy is a scientifically sound system.
What if the fact is that hundreds and hundreds of top flight scientists from the top flight universities and other scientific institutes vehemently reject the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory on the best of scientific grounds? What if it can be shown that the battle about the validity of this theory is fought with great ferocity at the highest levels of the worldwide scientific community? Then it would be seen that this foundation statement, “all the relevant scientists agree,” is totally false.
Here are just a few of the top flight scientists who reject the AGW theory:
Harold Lewis
Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.
The money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
*******
William Happer
Professor of Physics at Princeton University
The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years.
I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.
The management of most scientific societies has enthusiastically signed on to the global warming bandwagon. This is not surprising, since governments, as well as many states and foundations, generously fund those who reinforce their desired outcomes under the cover of saving the planet. Certain private industries are also involved: those positioned to profit from enacted controls as well as financial institutions heavily invested in “green technologies” whose rationale disappears the moment global warming is widely understood to be a non-problem.
**********
Dr. Philip Lloyd
Former professor at University of Witwatersrand, established a course in environmental chemical engineering.
Currently serves as an honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of CapeTown.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven’t a clue about the forces driving our climate past. I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
**********
Frederick Wolf
Professor of physics, Keene State College in New Hampshire
“Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system. Also, after studying climate, I am aware that there are cycles of warm and cold periods of varying lengths which are still not completely understood. I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming.”
***********
David Packham
Former principal research scientist with CSIRO
Senior research fellow, climate group at Monash University
“I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality of the science being applied to the global warming question. This lack of comfort comes from many directions: A lack of actual measurements for terrestrial radiation and the use of deemed values for particulate radiation absorption; The failure to consider the role of particulates from biomatter burning; The lack of critical thought and total acceptance of the global warming models as conclusive evidence; The lack of transparency and obscuration of the critical weaknesses in the GCMs. Along with these discomforts goes an observation that research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse data gathering.
There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. The effect of the group think is creating a corporate data gathering mind set amongst our young researchers that I think is dangerous.”
**********
Dr. Joanne Simpson
Atmospheric Scientist, formerly of NASA
First woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology.
Called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years” by
atmospheric scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
**********
Thomas B. Gray Meteorologist
Former head of the Space Services branch at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a researcher in NOAA’s Space Environment Laboratory and Environmental Research Laboratories.
“Nothing that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time. The claims of those convinced that AGW is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data,”
**********
Peter Stilbs
Chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm
Stilbs coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about manmade climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006 that “by the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement” about several key points regarding man-made climate fears.
• “There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis.
• The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
• Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998.
• There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years.
**********
Dr. Robert Balling
Climatologist of Arizona State University
Former head of the university’s Office of Climatology
Has served as climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program,
the World Climate Program,
the World Meteorological Organization,
and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Balling expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears in 2007. “In my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away,” Balling said in a November 11, 2007 interview with the Arizona Republic newspaper.
Noting the pressure he feels as a skeptical scientist, Balling explained, “Somehow I’ve been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell.” He added, “There’s just no tolerance right now.” The article explained, “Balling’s research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures.”
*********
Hajo Smit
Meteorologist of Holland
Member of the Dutch IPCC committee
Snow forecaster for Dutch winter sports
Has presented his research on soil moisture’s role in global
climate models at National Center for Atmospheric Research.
During my full year working at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I became suspicious about the way modeling science is done. Odd arbitrary parameterizations seemed the rule rather than the exception.
The “practice of simplifying models so that accurate measurements can be used to calibrate them, seemed to be abandoned by GCM groups in favor of a childish delight in presenting colorful computer printouts of when and where which temperature changes will occur.
Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.
The vast amount of new research since my graduation points to clear cut solarclimate coupling and to a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales.
***********
Oliver K. Manuel
Professor of Nuclear Chemistry of the University of Missouri-Rolla
Authored more than 100 scientific papers and published research in peer-reviewed literature.
“Compared to solar magnetic fields, however, the carbon dioxide production has as much influence on climate as a flea has on the weight of an elephant,”
***********
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973,
Fellow of the American Physical Society
“Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he added.
*******
Dr. Robert Austin
Physicist, Princeton University
“I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple.”
*******
Dr. Don Easterbrook
Professor of geology at Western Washington University
“The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
*******
Dr. Robert B. Laughlin,
Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.
*******
Dr. Hans Jelbring
Climatologist, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”
*******
Dr. John Reid
Atmospheric Physicist, who worked with CSIRO‘s, Division of Oceanography and worked in ocean waves research.
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I
know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”
*******
Dr. Judith Curry
Chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology
Defected from the global warming activist movement.
“There is ‘a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink.
*******
Philip Stott
Professor of Biogeography, University of London.
“As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets.”
*******
Leonard Weinstein
NASA, Langley Research Center, presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong. The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory.
It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed.
There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate.”
*******
Hilton Ratcliffe
South African astrophysicist, member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics
The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. The data does not support Gore’s hypothesis. Without trying too hard, I found 35 fundamental “errors” in An Inconvenient Truth. The word “errors” is in quotation marks because it is inconceivable to me that these falsehoods could all have been inadvertent. Some or possibly all were put there to deceive the viewer. There appears to have been money gained by [Michael] Mann, Gore and [UN IPCC‘s] Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud. If proven in a court of law, they should be heavily punished and their ill-gotten assets confiscated and put to the benefit of mankind.”
*******
Coalition of German scientists
More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in August 2009.
“Humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions.
Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.
More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role.
Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.”
“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.
Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.”
******
American Physical Society
In 2010, more than 260 scientists, members of the American Physical Society,(APS) endorsed the efforts of skeptical Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer to substantially amend the APS alarmist statement on man-made global warming.
Happer
wrote to APS governing board: ―Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.
Some of the signatories
Harold M. Agnew,
White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989)
Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Ralph B. Alexander,
Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University
David V. Anderson,
Research Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Eva Andrei,
Professor of Physics Rutgers University
Robert H. Austin,
Professor of Physics Princeton University
David F. Bartlett,
Professor of Physics University of Colorado
Franco Battaglia,
Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry University of Modena, Italy
Peter J. Baum,)
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California at Riverside
Ami E. Berkowitz,
Professor of Physics University of California at San Diego
Alan Berman,
School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences University of Miami
Barry L. Berman,
Chair Physics Department The George Washington University
Arie Bodek,
Professor of Physics University of Rochester
Richard J. Briggs,
Deputy Director, Superconducting Supercollider Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lowell S. Brown,
Professor of Physics University of Washington
William T. Buttler,
Experimental Physicist Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory
C. Todd Chadwick,
Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State University of New York,
Lawrence Cranberg,
Professor of Physics University of Virginia
Steven R. Cranmer,
Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
David H. Douglass,
Professor of Physics University of Rochester
James E. Draper,
Professor of Physics University of California at Davis
William T. Duffy Jr.,
Professor of Physics Santa Clara University
David F. Edwards,
Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory;
Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, Colorado State University;
Jens G. Feder,
Professor of Physics of Geological Processes University of Oslo
Douglas E. Fields,
Associate Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico
Edward J. Finn,
Professor of Physics, Georgetown University
Ivar Giaever,
Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Nobel Prize in Physics 1973
Eleftherios Gkioulekas,
Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard
Mike Gruntman,
Professor of Astronautics University of Southern California
Aksel Hallin,
Chair in Astroparticle Physics Department of Physics University of Alberta
Sultan Hameed,
Professor of Atmospheric Science School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University, New York
William Happer,
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Jack M. Hollander,
Professor of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley
Alexander E. Kaplan,
Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering The Johns Hopkins University
Jonathan Katz,
Professor of Physics Washington University
Robert S. Knox,
Professor of Physics University of Rochester
M. Kristiansen,
Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas Tech University
Moyses Kuchnir,
Applied Scientist Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Joseph A. Kunc,
Professor, Physics and Astronomy University of Southern California
Gary S. Kyle,
Professor of Physics New Mexico State University
Paul L. La Celle,
Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering
Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, Frankfort
.Sau-Hai Lam,
Professor of Engineering Princeton University
Steven K. Lamoreaux,
Professor of Physics Yale University
Robert B. Laughlin,
Professor of Physics, Stanford University
E. O. Lawrence,)
1986 Nobel Prize in Physics 1998 Member National Academy of Sciences; Fellow AAAS
Harold W. Lewis,
Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Chairman,
Richard Marrus,
Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley
John Martinis,
Professor of Physics University of California, Santa Barbara
Associate Professor of Physics Illinois State University
Joseph Maserjian,
Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology -Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Michael Monce,
Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics Connecticut College
Christopher R. Monroe,
Bice Zorn Professor of Physics Joint Quantum Institute, University of Maryland
Richard A. Muller,
Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley
Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Principle Author, Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes
Rodney W. Nichols,
President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences
Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University
William P. Oliver,
Professor of Physics Tufts University
Frank R. Paolini,
Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut at Stamford
Donald Rapp,
Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas (1973-1979) Author, Assessing Climate Change and Ice Ages and Interglacials (Springer-Verlag)
John E. Rhoads,
Professor of Physics Midwestern State University
Stanley Robertson,
Professor of Physics Southwestern Oklahoma State University
Isaac C. Sanchez,
William J. Murray, Jr. Chair in Engineering and Associate Chair Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin U
Nicola Scafetta,
Research Scientist Physics Department Duke University
S. Fred Singer,
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginia
John R. Smith,
Project Physicist, Experimental High Energy Physics Department of Physics University of California at Davis
Peter Stilbs,
Professor of Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm,
Thomas F. Stratton, Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Szymon Suckewer,
Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Princeton University
Salvatore Torquato,
Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Princeton University
Richard W. Vook,
Professor of Physics Syracuse University
John Weiner,
Visiting Professor, University of Maryland
Steven J. Werkema,
Deputy Head Fermilab Antiproton Source Department
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Samuel A. Werner,
The University of Missouri
Bruce J. West,
Adjunct Professor of Physics Duke University
David C. Williams,
Associate Professor Department of Physics University of Alabama at Birmingham
Ya-Hong Xie,
Professor of Materials Science and Engineering University of California at Los Angeles
Martin V. Zombeck,
Physicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
From comments @ http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

I criticized JustTheFacts use of the paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change,” in the journal Organization Studies.
JustTheFacts responde to my criticism at February 18, 2013 at 4:58 pm reponds with

I reposted an interesting article from IBD, along with a link to and quotes from the associated paper. This resulted in an open and active debate in comments, which is what I consider to be success. Additionally, I have yet to see a credible challenge to my observation that well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative. I restate my question to you:
Why do you think that increased scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW?

That is an interesting recasting of what this post does. In fact, you have presented “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change,” in the journal Organization Studies as evidence to support a position thay you believe. However the Organization Studies paper does not make the claim that “scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW.” If fact, the article is all about social standing creating “increased skepticism of CAGW” despite “scientific literacy.” The paper is about how to overcome the “defensiveness” of “deniers” (their word, not mine).
Now, let me make this clear (again): I agree with you that “scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW.” But be clear about this also, the Organization Studies paper that your post is about does not support that view – quite the opposite.
James Taylor, at Forbes, made the same claims that you made concerning this journal article (and was eaten alive by commenters). The principal authors of the Organization Studies paper, Lefsrud and Meyer, personally commented at the Forbes site, saying..

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

And they conclude their comment with..

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such! We trust that this clarifies our findings.

So, you misreprsented the Organization Studies paper. Please do not recast by saying your post was really about the IBD article, not the Organization Studies paper, You referenced the Organization Studies paper, and the IBD article was all about the Organization Studies paper. When I challenged you earier about actually reading or understanding the Organization Studies paper you insisted that you had.
You also say “I reposted an interesting article from IBD, along with a link to and quotes from the associated paper.This resulted in an open and active debate in comments, which is what I consider to be success.” That is poor rationalization. You and I could both dream up lots of “interesting” but untrue things that would lead to “an open and active debate in comments.”
Bottom line, you misrepresented the Organization Studies paper.

Brian Angliss;
Suppose you, and EE P Eng, is designing a circuit. It has one component with high enough current draw that you are concerned about the temperature rise of the component. No problem for you, you’re an engineer! An EE no less!
So, you’d probably start with the current draw (I) and the resistance (R) to come up with the power dissipated in watts via P=I^2R. Then you’d figure the surface area of the component from its dimensions (which I presume you can do as they taught this in high school even if you didn’t take it as part of your EE, so no need to call in an ME to do this for you).
Now you have P in w/m2. Then you would use SB Law to determine the equilibrium energy flux at ambient temperature, add your P in w/m2 to that, and calculate a new equilibrium temperature for the component.
Did I get anything wrong so far Mr EE P Eng?
Now if tolerances are particularly tight, I’d expect you to check emissivity and adjust accordingly. I’d expect you to determine the method by which the component is mounted to the rest of the equipment, and adjust for conductance. If there is significant air flow, you’d adjust for conductance to the air. If the component is in an enclosure, you’d need to investigate the radiative properties of the enclosure as they will further raise the temperature of the component.
Anything in that process that is wrong sir? Anything that YOU as an EE P Eng cannot handle?

Now if tolerances are particularly tight, I’d expect you to check emissivity and adjust accordingly. I’d expect you to determine the method by which the component is mounted to the rest of the equipment, and adjust for conductance. If there is significant air flow, you’d adjust for conductance to the air. If the component is in an enclosure, you’d need to investigate the radiative properties of the enclosure as they will further raise the temperature of the component.
Well a friend of mine who is an EE just sent me an email suggesting that a real engineer would probably want to do some testing at this point to verify calculations if the tolerances are indeed stringent. So I asked her, if the data came back completely different from your calculations, would you throw out the data? Or the calculations?
She said she’d double check the calibration of the test equipment, and if it was sound, she would take the data over the calculations.
A guess she’ll never make it as a climate scientist.

davidmhoffer – First, my lack of response to your increasingly agitated comments is not my ignoring you or giving up – sometimes I need to sleep and other times my day job requires me to step away from responding to comments for a few hours.
Second, I apparently created an inaccurate perception – I do not have a Professional Engineer’s certificate. It is not necessary in the US, or generally in electrical engineering in the US, to have one in order to claim that one is an “engineer.” I apologize if I created that impression. In my field, having a certificate means you are more employable and can expect a higher salary, but not much else. I understand that a certificate is all but a requirement for other fields, however, such as civil engineering.
Third, you are correct that much of the math is similar, and that anyone with a certain skillset will be able to replicate much of the results. I’ve done enough of that myself in my own studies of climate, and it’s those replications that are the reason I accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change (although my prefered term is “industrial climate disruption”). But I, and the vast majority of engineers, are skilled amateurs, not experts.
I really don’t understand what’s so radical about the idea that engineers are not the same as scientists. Just because I can change my own tires, gap my own spark plugs, and change the oil in my own cars doesn’t mean that I’m an automobile mechanic. A mechanic does work on cars day in and day out and is far more expert than I will ever be, not because I couldn’t be an expert, but because I have chosen instead to use my time to become an expert in my field of electrical engineering. Similarly, just because I can run a router, hang doors and windows, and rebuild my own bathroom doesn’t make me a carpenter.
The only things I can think of is that actually do explain the resistance to this idea that I have observed are a lack of humility on the part of engineers and other non-experts, motivated reasoning based on self-interest, and/or a lack of awareness of the limitations of one’s own knowledge and expertise.
Fourth, you wrote that my “suggestion reads pure and simple that engineers are not qualified to comment on climate science, yet ‘scientists’ are.” As an EE myself, and as someone who has been reporting about climate science and climate disruption for about a decade now, including verifying many of the results of key papers myself, I certainly did not suggest that engineers are not qualified to comment on climate science. I pointed out that engineers are not scientists in the sense I have previously described in my comments above, and I explained how it was that Taylor distorted the original study. Nothing more.

Brian Angliss says:
February 19, 2013 at 8:35 am
…..This is remarkably close to conspiracist thinking. There is no evidence that climate science (or the multiple specialities of other scientific fields that feed into climate science) has become “corrupted.” Some individuals have made mistakes, and some of those individuals should have corrected their mistakes when they were discovered, but the field(s) as a whole are unaffected…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have GOT TO BE KIDDING!
Just for a start read

Caspar and the Jesus paper
There has been the most extraordinary series of postings at Climate Audit over the last week. As is usual at CA, there is a heavy mathematics burden for the casual reader, which, with a bit of research I think I can now just about follow. The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting…..

Beware the global warming fascists: Johnny Ball on how he has been vilified for daring to question green orthodoxy

Andrew Montford has already produced a detailed and damning study on how the UK’s Royal Society has become politicised in recent decades. His conclusions are clear.

Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/royal-society-funding/

Wall Street Journal
Like the first “climategate” leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.
The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called “the gold standard” of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)….

The Secret History of Climate Alarmism: A very German story of power politics disguised as environmentalism
Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science?
The BBC’s ‘dirty little secret’ lands it in a new scandal: The truth of a secret meeting that decided BBC policy on climate change has come out online
How can the BBC be saved from itself without destroying it?: Dumbed-down climate coverage is just a symptom
Physicists send letter to Senate — Cite 160 scientists protest regarding APS climate position
And that is just the start of a long list of links to Science corruption. Heck the corruption is rampant through out science. US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?
ABSTRACT
The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys….
A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct….
Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.