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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sandi says:
March 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Great video by Julie Brigham-Grette’s Lake El’ gygytgyn Research: many periods when it has been much warmer in the Arctic than it is now.
===================
Thanks for that. Climate apparently has always been changing. Who’d a thought……..
This is tempting, the prices look good. Is July the slow season in Las Vegas? Lessee, average high 104°F Lo 80°F, yep that’ll keep me indoors, though I bicycled through easten Oregon in 100°F+ temps in 2003. I don’t expect to do that again….
http://climateconference.heartland.org/ says in part:
Willis too!
Registration $129 (includes several meals) ($99 for student/senior).
George
“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 = energy/time. Watts/m^2 is radiative flux, the unit used in Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation
“Power is an instantaneous quantity; and remember Mother Nature does NOT do averages. She “uses” the energy, at exactly the rate she gets it.”
Yes, but humans do averaging for computational purposes. Your car’s power is instantaneous but you can average it by this formula: fuel consumed x energy content of fuel x thermal efficiency of engine divided by operating time. That’s the average power of the car
“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.”
1362 W/m^2 is the solar flux for earth’s cross-sectional area. Divide it by 4 to convert to earth’s surface area
“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.”
Yes, this is why we have greenhouse effect. It is based on observation, the actual temperature of earth’s surface vs. theoretical calculation.
All,
This is my first response posting here, so please go easy on me.
It seems to me that the major goal of the core of the “Climate Change Movement” (CAGW) has little or nothing to do with Science (as many of the posters here have stated). The goal is money, power and control using various theories and mechanisms (including Socialism in its abstract form). Of course, there are many “useful idiots” (as Lenin would say) who go along with the Socialist (“Climate Change”) Cause for their own naïve reasons (not coincidentally the same tactics used by Lenin are now being used by the leaders of the “Climate Change” movement). Any attempts to use Science to counter the political and power objectives of this movement will be met with more political responses (not Science, because it is not about Science). Unfortunately for those of us who value data, objective reasoning and a search for the truth, we are definitely in the minority and we are definitely NOT the principal power brokers in the world!! The use of “Climate Science” as window-dressing for this political/socialist/power politics goal means that they do NOT NEED to be objective or even to convince a majority of those who are in a position to support/oppose them. The ONLY goal that is necessary for them to succeed is that they sow sufficient doubt or generate sufficient political capital to achieve their real objectives. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and even the majority of voters who are skeptical of the catastrophism preached by their adherents, the Climate Change Movement is succeeding in its objectives. Take the recent example of the change in language of the President using the phrase “Carbon Pollution” so successfully. He doesn’t have to be objective or truthful just an effective communicator (liar) to achieve his objectives. If convinces enough people that “carbon pollution” is harmful then he succeeds in his goal. Frustrating!
I fear that we will have to change tactics in order to counter their spin and propaganda or we will fail.
I very much welcome suggestions on how to counter the Spin being thrown at us every day.
I.Wylie in Seattle
Australia might be about to join the shale gas revolution.
The government of Queensland recently passed a law giving Aussies a say over mining company access to their land. This might seem incredible to Americans, but until this law, if the farmer didn’t cut a deal with the mining company within 40 days, the mining company could simply force their way in and start digging.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/queensland-to-tighten-rules-for-mining-on-farmland-20140320-353v0.html
This might seem a dream situation for miners, but it has actually been a disaster. Any new mining technology, such as fracking, has been vigorously opposed by farmers – they would rather see the entire technology shut down, than risk dispossession of their land.
Now Australia is interested in exporting gas, the government has a new problem – if gas exports are successful, but supply of gas doesn’t rise to meet demand, the result will be a politically deeply unpopular rise in domestic gas prices. So the Aussie government has to do something to break the deadlock, and encourage development of new gas resources. Looks like at least one state has finally woken up that the only way to encourage farmers to support shale gas is to make sure they get fairly compensated.
Since we agreed to refer to trashreSceptical Science as SkS, can we at least shorten Scientific American to ScAm? 🙂
(Sorry if I’m unknowingly stealing this idea from someone else.)
Washington Post Hides Reporter’s Ties to Democratic Group, Center for American Progress, in Attacks on Koch. pic.twitter.com/Hb5uDrsVkK h/t Richard Pearcey Facebook
Conflict of interest challenges dog Post
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?
Poor deduction J.Phil…Michael Mann has lost all credibility and so has Scientific American.
I just think you’re doing a great job.
george e. smith says:
March 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm
>>>>>
Yup!
D.J. Hawkins says:
March 21, 2014 at 2:06 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/21/open-thread-14/#comments
(What’s the emoticon for a primal scream?)
You could try >:-((O))
==========================================================
Hey, hey, hey… Looks like you’re channeling a little digital Munch there. Not sure how to get the ‘hands’ up beside the ‘head’ though.
Thanks! D.J.
.
.
.
.
When seconds matter, always remember that help is only minutes away.
Peter, Sandi
Since arctic amplification is 2.5 to 3 times the globally averaged warming, how much more warming, on the global average, would we need to surpass the MIS-11 temperature?
In addition,
Simulated mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWM) at Lake El’gygytgyn for preindustrial and modern conditions (10.3 and 12ºC, respectively) compare favorably with 20th century reanalysis products (14), but are slightly warmer than limited ground observations, which range from ~8.3-10ºC
source:
http://www.geo.umass.edu/lake_e/SOM1222135s.pdf
since her graphic shows the lower range, it can be assumed that her statement was indicating 8 degrees warmer from pre-industrial temperatures (or 4-6 degrees warmer from modern temperatures).
lenbilen 2:14pm
The last line of his poem is —
“A transfer of wealth, a solution”
This thought is the truest thing I have ever seen said about increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. Something that increases agricultural output world wide is the holy grail of agricultural science. Talk about your Green Revolution!
Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increases the wealth of the world’s poorest. It ends starvation and misery and allows industrial development. A full belly allows people to spend time bettering other aspects of their lives. It is indeed the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world — and costs absolutely nothing! It really is — creating wealth out of thin air!
Many thanks to lenliben for pointing out the obvious — a difficult thing to do. We poets really are the world’s great thinkers.
Eugene WR Gallun
OK. Here’s a quick ‘model’ but based on actual regression of unadjusted measured temperature using the Central England yearly Temperature record (the longest available over 350 years from 1659 (LIA) to 2010 from three gauges in a triangle spread over central England). The yearly temperature in 1659 was 8.83 deg C – take it as the starting point. The linear regression equation over 350 years is T = 0.0025 x Year (AD) + 4.5523. Assume temperature keeps rising in the long term at the same rate.
Substitute:
2000 yields 9.55 deg C
2030 yields 9.63 deg C (9.63 – 8.83 = 0.8 deg C since 1659)
2046 yields 9.67 “ ( 9.67 – 8.83 = 0.84 deg since 1659)
2050 yields 9.68 “ (9.68 – 8.83 = 0.85 deg C since 1659)
And there is no CO2 signature evident from the record.
Mann o Mann you’re dreaming and in the Twilight Zone!
Tweeted this since Saturday 3/22/14 is World Water Day.
@rsowell: There is no water shortage on #worldwaterday, Only a lack of distribution. #NEWTAP
http://t.co/VRCcxUJs73
By the way, now there is a title for a paper.
INCREASING CO2 LEVELS — CREATING WEALTH OUT OF THIN AIR
Feel free to use it.
Eugene WR Gallun
@ur momisugly aaron at 1:47 pm
“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.”
Saudis used their pricing influence in the late 1970s to set world oil price just below the point where others could profitably convert coal to liquids. The price has remained essentially the same ever since, adjusted for inflation. So, in that sense, Saudis have prevented energy development.
In a much-delayed response, US EPA recently passed regulations that will encourage coal-to-gas plants with CO2 capture and storage, CCS. A commercial coal gasification plant is under construction in Mississippi, USA, the Kemper facility. The official EPA reason for the coal regulations is to prevent global warming. The end result will be coal-to-liquids plants and the end of OPEC’s domination of world energy markets.
From one of my speeches on Peak Oil, in 2011: “$32 was the price Saudi Arabia chose for oil in 1980. That was the highest price they could get without triggering the USA building our coal-to-liquids plants. However, it is a fact that today, $80 per barrel is the same as that $32 in 1980, adjusted for inflation. Saudis maintain the price by adjusting production, and bring the price down to $80 as soon as possible. This happened in 2008, most recently. If the price of oil gets much above $80, we will drill for and produce much more oil, just like we did the last time that oil price shot up.We found oil in Alaska, the North Sea, Indonesia, and other places. Therefore, we will not see a doubling of oil price ever again. The threat of converting US coal to oil is simply too real. We know how.”
Speech is here: http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/speech-on-peak-oil-and-us-energy-policy.html
I’ve been waiting for Open Thread to pose this question:
How many non-alarmists aka “deniers” are non-religious or atheists?
And is there a correlation with disbelief in CAGW and disbelief in religion?
Because it always irritates me when I see the blatant stereotyping that the alarmists put forth. The stereotype of a non-alarmist is something like: religious, extreme right, anti-science, creationist, anti environmentalist, not to mention the Lewandowski inspired moon landing hoax nutter stuff.
FWIW, I am an atheist, and tend to be conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues.
Just wondering how many out there are like me. And would it be worthwhile to put forth a poll to counter the stereotypes?
Having been raised to be religious I had to go through the disbelieving process first. Very similar to the process where I went from believing 100% in Al Gore circa 2006 and then slowly realizing I was being propagandized by the BBC’s (& media in general) endless scare stories circa 2008. So at long last, I am non-religious and non-alarmist. Do they go hand in hand? For me they do, both start with asking questions of the status quo and challenging one’s own beliefs.
Cheers!
george e. smith says:
March 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm
————————————
Fantastic comment. Such clarity and logic is very refreshing. You are right in that you cannot point to any thing in the universe, any datapoint and say “there is an average”. Averages just do not exist in nature.
Dr. Strangelove says:
March 21, 2014 at 5:09 pm
————————————
You have nicely proved George E Smith’s point that any use of any average is unscientific, which by your argument means that the “greenhouse effect’ is also unscientific and it is not based on any actual observational data.
Kozlowski see: Christianity and climate change: the relationship between God and green. A new survey suggests that evangelical Christians in the US are more likely to be climate sceptics.
Also The Cornwall Alliance especially An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming
Beware noble cause corruption. See William Briggs: Global Warming Hanger-On Says Ends Justify The Means. Climate alarmists are following the principles of atheistic governments in the 20th century caused more than 100 million deaths of their own citizens.
Marcos says:
March 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm
why does his graphic show the last 18 or so years as warmer than the 1998 El Nino year?
—————————————————————-
Yes,well spotted. It’s called ‘artistic licence’. or in layman’s terms- ‘Fanciful Rubbish’ !
The graph. It looks to me that the climate sensitivity extrapolations begin at or before 2000, but it’s 2014, so you can add 14 years to the 2036, the 2046 and other “2 degree C danger thresholds” making them 2050 and 2060.
The temperature increase. No, it’s not a 2 degrees temp increase, it’s a 1.2 degree increase from the pre-industrial times since temps have already increased 0.8 C degrees since then. Do scientists say humanity will suffer serious harm with a 1.2 degree increase from present temperatures? Temps have increased about 2 degrees C since little ice age times.
The climate sensitivity. Estimates are all over the place with outliers like Hansen and Lindzen above and below the the IPCC 4.5 to 1.5 C estimate. However, there’s evidence that climate scientist estimates are converging around 2 C degrees or a little lower in the “lukewarmer” range.
From eyeballing the graph (and adding 14 years) it looks like the 2 C degree threshold happens around 2080 with 2 degree sensitivity and 2110 with 1.5 degrees sensitivity.
I would love to bet Mann or anyone else that our global temps do not increase 1.2 C degrees by 2036.
Well.
The “scientific” american propaganda sheet doesn’t show the computer models as they were 15 years ago. Like this one.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/clip_image012_thumb1.jpg?w=494&h=417
It is hype following the old saying: “If at first you don’t succeed, try try and try and try… again”
I stopped reading the “scientific” american years ago. Popular Mechanics has more credibility.
Kozlowski says:
March 21, 2014 at 7:06 pm
———————————-
Triple like.
Fiscal conservative, social liberal.
…. not totally atheist though. Have you read “The Age of Spiritual Machines” and congeners ?
It is very odd how the models seem to be more real to Mann than reality is. (For the sake of argument, I am assuming sincerity on his part, which I acknowledge is not necessarily a correct assumption.) He would be at ease in Hollywood, I suppose, and among educators who do not distinguish between an actual, real weapon and a plastic, toy weapon. I have a hunch that a lot of the problems we have in contemporary society can be chalked up to such people.