Open Thread

Pokerguy
The NYTimes has two articles: The Pause in global temperatures and the Great Lakes water levels.
Not mentioned, but implied, Natural Variation overwhelms the impact of CO2. The message should be loud and clear: we don’t understand Natural Variation; Natural Variation is more powerful than CO2; if Anthropogenic CO2 is THE climate driver, CO2 isn’t very powerful; CO2 is a greenhouse gas if we measure it in a box, on a lab bench, in a controlled physics lab. The take home message, CO2 is a bit player, in a bit role, making a bit contribution on a grand stage in the Grand Theater of Climate Change. No wonder climate scientists can’t find the CO2 signal; a trace gas providing a trace impact.
The NYTimes Great Lakes water levels article does not mention my measuring at the end of my dock 15 inches of water level rise from last September’s water level on Lake Huron two weeks ago. I have heard there has been more rain since. The Snow Pack of Northern Ontario is substantial this winter, so the water level is projected by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to be 6 inches higher this summer than last summer. 300 tons more carried by Great Lakes Carrier ships per inch of increase water levels. Officially, the lowest level YEAR on the Great Lakes, measured since 1837 was…1964. The highest record level was..1986. In 1986, Chicago was regularly flooded and the Lake Front properties owners, who represented billions of dollars of waterfront property, were more than displeased and went to USA Congress who authorized the ACE to dredge the St. Clair River to provide an outlet. Power politics from a Chicago (sound familiar) group, pressing Congress and ACE to act. Hmmm. The ACE is being asked to find the Goldie Locks just right water level between competing…Corporate interests.
It seems the NYTimes and its reporters have some more reading to do to flush out their articles on Catastrophic Change. At this point in time, what they say: it just ain’t so.

Latimer Alder says:
June 11, 2013 at 1:55 pm
“‘The NYT says
‘Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently’
The author is confused about the difference between ‘it has warmed’ and ‘it is warming’. Or between the data itself and its first derivative wrt time.
Consider a ball thrown into the air. In the first half the ball is going up. Its height is increasing and its direction is up. ”
Even simpler. “Historical record” is meaningless with regard to temperature. Historians use old writings; “prehistory” is what happened before historic writings. With temperature there is the instrumental record and the proxies, no historical record. It’s meaningless and that is probably why the NYT socialist progressives have used the word. Or are they smart enough to know what they did? Probably not. If they want historical records i.e. writings maybe some old rune stones will do; Newfoundland was called Vinland by the Norse, how about that.
And they left behind runestones.
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/06/RIR-130604.php

tonyb,
Yes, I also link to the CET data, but although it is considered a good proxy for global temperatures it is not the same kind of data. And “slow decline” does not apply to CET; Last time I checked, the annual mean anomalies from the Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) data set showed a decline of some 0.6°C from 2003 to 2012! (that’s cold!)

Isn’t the NY City temperature controlled by CO2 emissions from extra-large soft drinks?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.12029/abstract
Just when you thought it couldn’t get nuttier, bioethicists want in on the warmism gravy train.

philincalifornia says: “With all the Murray Salby discussion going on, it got me wondering about setting up a multi-decadal experiment to measure CO2 outgassing from the Pacific Ocean. If I was going to do that, where would be a good location for the measurements ……….. ?”
Not on top of a volcano.