I have some work to do today that will take me away from being online, so it seemed like a good time for an open thread.
All topics within the bounds of the WUWT commenting policy are fair game. Of recent interest is Mann’s paper on Scientific American and this image (click to enlarge) with his forecast:
…and Lewandowsky’s Recursive Fury getting flushed.
I would take the “faux pause” very seriously. Dr. Mann is an expert on faux history.
Is there anyone here with financial forensics skills? I’m curious how much money Saudi’s, Russians, etc. might be using to prevent energy development.
J. Philip Peterson says:
March 21, 2014 at 12:22 pm
“I thought Michael Mann had lost all credibility as a climate scientist.
How come he is allowed to write an article in Scientific American?
Is it only on WUWT that he has no credibility?”
He has no credibility nor does Scientific American which is just another warmist rag on the level of a print version of Grist or Huffington Post.
His stick is drooping…..
Must be due to the stress of no warming for almost 18 years!!
These parameters create weather, a decidedly not-random phenomenon. Weather includes both small and large pressure systems as well as various kinds of clouds. Weather is not a random but has both short and long term fluctuations. From that non-random weather data we get climate data. Mann makes a huge mistake in setting weather to zero. He turns a climate circulation model run on expensive computers into nothing more than a child’s lego model. Static and unable to adapt to the weather. He set the parameters to spiral temperature up and up and up and then asks us to marvel and run scared at his “discovery”.
Idiot.
You can’t keep a good Mann (graph) down
Further on Arctic sea ice and the positive sea temperature anomaly around Svalbard.
What if volcanic activity is melting the ice in that region. It would raise the possibility of volcanic adjustments to the Arctic ice area curves, diluting some of the nonsense about Arctic ice depletion due to CO2-induced thermageddon.
The irony would be a delight.
What happened to the climategate 3.0 release? Is there a specific reason why Watts et al aren’t releasing any of the remaining emails?
Nothing much there, as it turns out. The hot stuff came out in the first two releases. Take solace at the havoc wrought by that which has come out.
Since this is open house, it seems the appropriate place to air (once again) one of my pet beefs; namely the insistence of some (possibly of many) that CLIMATE is the long term AVERAGE of WEATHER..
Now I have argued that climate is the long term INTEGRAL of weather; that is to say, it is the consequence of EVERYTHING that has happened up to now. Since that consists of apples AND oranges, and also Kiwi Fruit, and every other thing, under the sun, it simply is not possible to plot the weather on a graph, and simply add up the area under the graph, and get an average.
So the notion that MY summation (integral) is somehow related to the AVERAGE (of what), is simply ludicrous.
Now the “average” is a precisely defined, completely un-debatable rigorous mathematical property of “”””” ……ANY !!! …..””””” already known set of numbers. It’s NOT some wishy washy somewhat unknown quantity.
Now in scientific researches, the “already known” numbers in the data set, are often numbers measured, or otherwise acquired, perhaps at different times, and different places.
Exactly how numbers in a data set are acquired, is entirely irrelevant to the computation of the average of that data set. Once the numbers in the set are known, the statistical mathematical consequences, are completely defined, and are not uncertain in any way. Statistics is an exact mathematical discipline.
So it is often the case, that statistical analyses, are applied to information gathered at a variety of times and places, and maybe by a variety of means.
And the purveyors of these statistical analysis results, assert that they are doing “science.”.
Well NO; they are actually doing mathematics; which is all made up and fictional; albeit sometimes very useful.
If it was “science” one might presume, that one was reporting on how the actual real universe, was reacting, so all of those disparate events, that were observed at various times and places by various means.
It is surely true, that since the time of the big bang, this universe, has NEVER (not even once), acted on, or reacted to, ANY average of ANYTHING. The universe reacts in real time, according to the discovered laws of nature, to each and ever happenstance, exactly as it occurs.
There are NO DELAYS in nature. The components of the universe react instantaneously to anything and everything, that happens.
Now if that something that happens, is a new inflow of energy, to some system that absorbs it and converts it to waste heat, that heat will immediately start to disperse according to the laws of nature, and will immediately start to manifest itself in perhaps, an increase in TEMPERATURE at some place(s) in the system.
But any (apparent) delay, is simply a consequence, or the natural laws, governing the propagation of energies, and the properties of materials, that relate heat and Temperature.
The point is, that nature NEVER waits to accumulate “input”, and then reacts to the average of that input; the response to changes, is immediate, and in the order in which things happen, as they happen.
So we can say without ambiguity, that anytime the word “AVERAGE” appears in any “science” paper; that we know a priori, that THE SCIENCE IS WRONG !
Nature NEVER computes averages.; they are worthless, and accomplish vey little.
The long term average (30 year) Temperature of my kitchen stove, is in the range of 20-25 deg. C; or 68-77 deg. F.
I can poach an egg in five minutes (5 min) (in steam) on my stove if I turn it on and let it warm to above 100 deg. C for about five minutes, and then turn it off.
At its average Temperature of 20-25 deg. C, my stove will NEVER poach an egg, even if I wait that whole 30 years. Mother Nature does NOT do AVERAGES.
Now I’m not against anyone calculating an average for any set of already known numbers; even the numbers of letters on each line of this essay, as I type it on my screen.
But in no way, can I call it science; or any kind of report on whatever happened in the real universe.
That’s why I don’t like ANY of the so-called CLIMATE MODELS., or Dr. Kevin Trenberth’s Earth Radiation Budget “cartoon.”
Incidentally, I use the term “cartoon” to describe that diagram, NOT in any derogatory sense, simply as a way (one of many) to describe its nature.
I think it IS a ludicrous document, just the same; if only because of its flippant and inaccurate usage of well defined scientific terms.
It has for example component elements, relating to conduction and convection of “heat” energy in the atmosphere, as well as transport of latent “heat” energy through evaporation.
None of those processes, are in any way related to the Earth’s radiation budget, as they have nothing whatsoever to do with radiation; by which we usually (perhaps loosely) refer to “electromagnetic radiation energy”.
Next, and far more serious, is the fact that Dr. Trenberth’s “radiation” components are referred to in units of Watts per meter squared.
Now Watts, is NOT a unit of “radiation”, or electromagnetic radiation energy, it is a unit of POWER, which is a RATE of supply/ flow/ transport/ conversion/ utilization/ whatever, and Watts per meter squared is the areal density of that POWER.
Power is an instantaneous quantity; and remember Mother Nature does NOT do averages. She “uses” the energy, at exactly the rate she gets it.
In the case of the earth, that rate density is about 1362 Watts per meter squared, from the sun, and at that rate, it can turn a blacktop strip, in a tropical dry desert into a near 100 deg. C source of thermal radiant energy in the LWIR region.
At Kevin’s 342 W/m^2, no normal absorbing surface, can ever reach zero degree C, even after 30 years of absorption. Mother Nature DOES NOT do averaging.
Just ignoring the 24 hour rotation period of planet earth, in climate studies, means the science is NOT settled; it is in fact completely erroneous.
Jordan says:
March 21, 2014 at 1:56 pm
I don’t know if the submarine range from Jan Mayen to Svalbard has been more active, but of course it has gotten closer to the surface over the past century. That it was just discovered suggests it possibly has been. IIRC the volcano on JM erupted in 2008 & on Svalbard ejected ash in 2011.
H.R. says:
March 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm
2 degrees more and we’re all gonna’ fry?
Roman optimum anyone? Anyone? Eemian? Hello? Scientific American? Mann? Hello?
(What’s the emoticon for a primal scream?)
You could try >:-((O))
It is interesting to look and one of Mann’s fake graphs. It looks all “sciency” and all that, but it is just a scare story to frighten the gullible.
I mentioned to many people these last few days that the government data bases claim Central Florida had temps above normal this winter. I got back looks of unbelief from people still wearing a sweater or windbreaker during spring at the idea that this was not one of the longest, coldest fracking winters since the 70s.
They keep the records and change whatever they want at will. Until there is some non-governmental group who produces an honest data set, this war will go on until NYC is under 5km of ice.
I keep trying to promote the fact that increasing CO2 is a transfer of wealth from energy consumers to farmers and ranchers, reaching all, knowing no borders.
What is then this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes it grow, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
@ur momisugly george e. smith
Thanks for that comment George; I really enjoyed it. We should have an open thread more often.
Mann: “S ≈ 1370 Wm-2 is the solar constant”
Actually, it’s about 1366. Only a little bit less but isn’t 3-4 Wm-2 the sort of difference bed-wetters loose sleep over?
” B = 1.5 Wm-2 yields a more conservative ECS of DT2xCO2 = 2.5 degC.”
2.5 degrees is “conservative”?! Yeah, right on Mickey.
“3.0oC, consistent with midrange estimates by the International Panel on Climate ”
Yes but you don’t take “middle of the range” from a PDF, you take the median. But you knew that already. didn’t you Mickey.
Have you managed to work out a conservative estimation of the number of Nobel prizes you won yet?
Just askin’ .
I am sorely tempted to offer Mikey Mann a bet, ala Simon vs. Ehrlich.
Of course, that would be problematic as the actual temp data would be so contorted that showing he is wrong would be just about impossible.
On the bright side, if the temp trend runs under the 2.0 ECS line for another year or two, Mann’s prediction will be toast.
I saw a fabulous comment recently by somebody who posts as “fretslider”. It referred to the stasis in global temperature as 1.1 Santers.
Great idea … in honour of somebody’s contribution, we should introduce “the Santer” to climatology, equal to a period of 17 years.
If the global warming stasis exceeds 1 Santer, we have an immediate measure that the CO2 induced thermageddon theory is in trouble.
We could do with some suggestions for other global warming related measures in honour of those who have done so much to try to make it real.
While looking around, I visited that horrible article in the Conversation “Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?” The number of comments now exceeds 700, but the moderator has obliterated them …. some conversation, eh?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/revisiting-the-pinatubo-eruption-as-a-test-of-climate-sensitivity/
1 degree, that’s more “conservative” , what’s more it’s based on REAL DATA , not models.
The snow has finally melted enough to go metal detecting today in Wisconsin, I noticed that south facing hills, even very small ones with a mild slope, were completely thawed, but the top of the hills and nearby flat ground was still frozen rock-solid. So I got to wondering how much does topography contribute to warming in the spring, and when we get a lot of snow (or for that matter, glaciers, the ultimate in flat surfaces), nullifying little hills into flatness, does the flatness itself help spiral an area into years of cold and perhaps even an ice age? Or maybe a better way to put it … would a completely flat Earth be colder than a bumpy Earth?
My buddy got an indianhead penny, I got a walk. Still a nice day to be out.
A few days ago I happened to be traveling back from Athens via Paris. The great circle route took the big 767 over Iceland, Greenland, Baffin Island, Hudson Bay and across Canada to Seattle. It was a ten hour flight during the daytime. For many of those hours all that could be seen was snow and ice. Thousands and thousands of square miles of pure white with no sign of life, either plant or animal, and no sign of habitation.
How is this different from an ice age I wondered. In view of the fact that the Earth is in an ice age the only difference is one of degree. The cryo-layer that comes every winter to these northern latitudes is not as thick or as enduring as it used to be during the last glacial period, but it still covers much the same area. If we were not in an ice age I would have seen little or no ice and snow. Instead that trackless wasteland might well have been covered in vegetation…trees, grass, bushes, a variety of wildlife and human settlements here and there.
The Earth has two dominant states. One is called Icehouse Earth; the other is called Greenhouse Earth. Homo Sapiens have known only the former. Don’t be confused by the present interglacial period…the Holocene; while warmer it is part of Icehouse Earth. As I type this I am in a warm house wearing warm clothing. Without that I wouldn’t last long here in northern Idaho. Mankind has adapted to the conditions he found himself in; not through genetics, rather through technology. And so, we never give a thought to our current icey predicament. In fact, while most educated people know about the last glacial period, they assume all that ice age business is in the distant past, despite the return of ice and snow every winter. That is probably because very few are aware of Greenhouse Earth.
I think it is important to know about Greenhouse Earth because that is what we humans are best suited for. Permanent ice as we now have is a rare phenomenon in the history of the Earth, occurring only during the 20% of the time that the planet has been under an Icehouse effect. We had a beginning in warmth not cold. Why is it most people think of a warm, sunny beach for vacation rather than Greenland? We love to lay in the warm sun, not on freezing snow. We humans can sit in the shade unclothed at 80F, not moving, and be perfectly comfortable. Of course we can handle somewhat higher and lower temperatures, but that is our ideal, our thermal neutral point. Compare that with the last wild horse, Przewalski’s horse. They are comfortable at -40F if enough grass is available for feed. These are the horses cavemen where drawing.
Something else most have never heard of…the Older Peron…a period of unusually warm climate during the Holocene Epoch. It began about 7000 years ago, and lasted to about 6100 years ago. The Older Peron was a period of generally clement and balmy weather conditions that favored plant growth. Warm temperatures forced a retreat in the glaciers and ice sheets of the global cryosphere; throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average. At least a few commentators — anthropologists, folklorists, and others — have linked the era of the Older Peron transgression and the Neolithic Subpluvial with tales of a “time of plenty”, the Golden Age or Garden of Eden, that occur in the legendary backgrounds of many cultures. It is interesting to note that this Golden Age sounds very much like conditions many climate scientists now predict with inappropriate alarm. It would be a great improvement over present conditions.
I would suggest that before we can discuss climate intelligently we need to be clear on a few points.
1. The Earth is in the Icehouse state.
2. Icehouse Earth is not normal.
3. Humans are not well suited to Icehouse Earth.
4. Greenhouse Earth is normal and to be preferred.
5. Warmer climate is good, not bad.
There is a lot hinky with the temperature record in his graph. What happened to the 1998 El Nino? Every dataset I have ever seen has 1998 as the record hottest year (only after adjusting 1934 colder) so why is 2013 shown hotter? Also, it appears the model outputs have been adjusted about 0.3 C colder in order to put them in the range of the actual dataset. So what gives? No explanation?
Well CO2 ain’t gonna stay below 405ppm, so we’re gonna have to ride it out and see. Presumably Mann’s bet his pension on being right. If not, he should be made to, like all the others doomsayers.
SteveC says: (March 21, 2014 at 12:50 pm)
“Garbage In… GREEN Garbage Out!”
Green Garbage in… RED Garbage Out!
From Mann’s Scientific America article…
“What does the short-term slowdown portend for how the world may warm in the future?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is charged with answering such questions.”
No. The IPCC is charged with driving climate policy worldwide by mis-representing science.
The evidence goes against exaggerated future warming as expressed by Mann in his article. The zig-zag pattern until 2010 in the figure is due to fine tuning of aerosols to match models to agree with past temperatures. By a remarkable coincidence the net CMIP5 forcing then ends up being almost identical to a pure CO2 forcing 5.3ln(C/C0). As a result we can measure that TCR is about 1.6C and tthat he best estimate for ECS is ~ 2.3C see comparison here
The strange case of TCR and ECS