Open Thread Weekend

open_threadThis holiday weekend, be sure to remember the U.S. Memorial Day, which is Monday. I’m offline except maybe for some time tonight and tomorrow morning.

Feel free to discuss the usual topics at WUWT.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 24, 2014 6:17 am

Great! That gives me a chance to catch up. 🙂 I have about a dozen WUWT articles on my reading list.

May 24, 2014 6:29 am

ENSO fans: In case you’re wondering if the ENSO meter is struck at +0.5, rest assured that my script is fetching data fine. The last few samples are:
data from 00Z19APR2014 to 00Z19MAY2014
The last three all round to +0.5.

Bloke down the pub
May 24, 2014 6:33 am

I’ve just been watching an episode of Coast Australia, the BBC series that’s migrated to the antipodes. One of the talking heads on it was Tim Flannery. Good to see that Auntie found employment for him after he lost his job in Tony Abbots cuts. Te Hee.

May 24, 2014 6:39 am

No major news on the E-Cat front. Everyone is waiting for the publication of results for a multi-month independent run, hopefully around the end of June. There are various other things going on, but I’m not following them closely.

May 24, 2014 6:40 am

Anthony, enjoy your weekend!!!!

May 24, 2014 7:01 am

India hits U.S., China with solar imports anti-dumping duties
(Reuters) – India will impose anti-dumping duties on solar panels imported from the United States, China, Taiwan and Malaysia to protect domestic solar manufacturers, according to a government statement seen by Reuters on Friday.
The order, almost certain to anger India’s trading partners, sets duties of between 11 and 81 U.S. cents per watt and comes after a investigation which started in 2011. The ruling by a quasi-judicial body has to be published by the Finance Ministry before it takes effect.
The decision adds to India’s growing trade disputes just before Narendra Modi takes office as prime minister on Monday.
“Imposition of anti-dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping practices,” said India’s Anti-Dumping Authority in its order released on Thursday.
Local manufacturers have long complained that U.S., Chinese and Malaysian companies enjoy state subsidies and are selling their products at artificially low prices to capture the Indian market.
India also believes that anti-dumping duties imposed on Chinese solar producers by the European Union and the United States have further driven down the price of Chinese solar products, to the detriment of Indian suppliers.

May 24, 2014 7:02 am

I welcome the Memorial Day holiday here in the US. It is the unofficial beginning of summer for many here . . . . .

May 24, 2014 7:17 am

Latest scare!
“Historic Houses To Catch Diseases From Climate Change”!

May 24, 2014 7:25 am

Weekend open thread buzzkill: Watched my first episode of “years of living dangerously” last night on showtime from 9-10pm EDT….the episode focused on Methane gas leaking out all over from pipelines and rigs, how the Kansas legislature almost rolled back renewable energy standards and the “climate denialist” industry featuring James Taylor from Heartland institute. The big-boned America Ferrera introduced him as a climate change “denier” and then asked him for his take on climate change?….Mr. Taylor: “CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more of it should lead to some warming” . Ms. Big-bones: “So you are denying that global warming is happening”
….we are all gonna die.

May 24, 2014 7:32 am

“North Pole Camera” #1 has fallen over and lies on its side, viewing the world like a drunk with one cheek against the snow. Even from that angle it has captured the building of a pressure ridge in the distance. (I have no idea why the camera fell. Maybe a bear thought it was a good toy, and maybe the ice shook when a collision between two floes occurred.)
Will someone please shell out the money to fly someone up there in a helicopter, to prop the camera back up? A lot of interesting stuff is happening up there, this year.
“North Pole Camera” #2 shows a new crack in the ice in the mid distance.
The ice is very bashed-up this year, but I don’t think that means it will melt faster. One odd thing, at this time of year, is that the ice can be warmer than the water it floats on, because the ice contains fresher water than the sea-water. You can have 31 degree ice floating on 29.5 degree water.
In the Sea-ice post before this post “Just The Facts” pasted this great video, which shows how smashed-up the ice is, even where the ice is thick, (and also shows how swiftly the cracks “heal”).

Gordon Fosty
May 24, 2014 7:33 am

Since Climate Science is settled, why isn’t there just a single computer model with all the parameters affecting the climate agreed to by the 97% of scientists?

May 24, 2014 7:42 am

Late May the situation in the Balkans (jet stream) will be repeated.
Here you can see how the jet stream will move over the Balkans.

Alan Robertson
May 24, 2014 7:53 am

Someone just sent me this link, which is highly entertaining, but is ultimately just a propaganda indoctrination of young people.

May 24, 2014 8:07 am

Hope all of you in the US enjoy your Memorial Day Holiday. Here in UK, Monday is a Bank (public) holiday and guess what? It’s raining!
Can someone also please explain to me what is happening in the Antarctic? The last I heard was that the ice sheet there was bigger than ever and that the ice in the Arctic had shrunk!

John Boles
May 24, 2014 8:10 am

It was good to learn of the sting on Begley and the others. It seems a bit heavy handed, but I think it is okay to do once in a while, get them to show their true colors. What I would rather see is photos and vids of the McKibbens and Manns and Hansens and Lewandowskis driving cars and buying gasoline and flying on jets and heating their homes, etc. Begley lives pretty frugally to begin with, but he was an easy target because of his connection to Hollywood. I am very happy to have found WUWT, a great resource on the climate debate. Best regards to all.

May 24, 2014 8:11 am

Thanks to Nick Stokes quoting of the CFv2 paper[1] we see that:
– models do make predictions and forecasts
– models can be compared to observations
So, is the some official climate “science” notification that indicates which models can be compared to observations and which cannot?

Chris Edwards
May 24, 2014 8:25 am

Can someone here help and answer this? IF humans are causing a problem burning too much fossil fuel for the planet to handle (I doubt this) then would not the O2 content of the atmosphere be going down? And if the powers that be really thought that CO2 was bad would they not ban the catalytic converters we all are forced to use (for very little reason these days) that magnify the output of CO2 from our cars and trucks?

Walt Allensworth
May 24, 2014 8:37 am

Opinions sought on this topic:
How good a proxy for world temperatures is the GISP-2 Ice Core data?
This is a critical question because if it is a good proxy then the several large temperature swings in the Holocene in the past make the current temperature increase look rather mundane and average.
Thanks in advance!

May 24, 2014 8:38 am

US taxpayers fund $5.6 million “Climate Change Games” at Columbia U… seems to be a website full of “voicemails from the future”…WTF?! Hilarious… if it wasn’t costing us money.

Richard M
May 24, 2014 9:11 am

Walt Allensworth says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:37 am
Opinions sought on this topic:
How good a proxy for world temperatures is the GISP-2 Ice Core data?

I’d say it’s pretty good, especially for the Northern Hemisphere (the real amplitude is probably less). Keep in mind that it ends in 1854 and you must add on some amount of warming to get to present day. It is the amount of warming that is likely to be more questionable. Anywhere from .2C to about .8C depending on your views.

glen martin
May 24, 2014 9:25 am

When was the last time there was still ice on Lake Superior during Memorial Day weekend?

May 24, 2014 9:35 am

Chris Edwards says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:25 am
Can someone here help and answer this? IF humans are causing a problem burning too much fossil fuel for the planet to handle (I doubt this) then would not the O2 content of the atmosphere be going down?
O2 is about 20% IIRC of the atmosphere. So, about 200,000 ppm (parts per million)
Over the course of the industrial revolution, CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to about 400 ppm. If we were to assume that for every CO2 coming in, one O2 comes out, that would leave O2 at 199,880 ppm. In other words almost zero percent change. Given the accelerated growth of plants due to CO2 fertilization which releases the O2 from the CO2 back in to the atmosphere, it would be even less than that.

Gary Pearse
May 24, 2014 9:45 am

Gordon Fosty says:
May 24, 2014 at 7:33 am
“Since Climate Science is settled, why isn’t there just a single computer model with all the parameters affecting the climate agreed to by the 97% of scientists?”
Why don’t they lay off all but one climate scientist.

May 24, 2014 10:02 am

john says:
May 24, 2014 at 7:01 am
India hits U.S., China with solar imports anti-dumping duties

Does Pachauri have iterests in Indian solar?

May 24, 2014 10:23 am

“SC-Slywolf says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:02 am
Does Pachauri have iterests in Indian solar?”
Check out Pachauri and Tata. Tata pretty much have been given Land Rover, since about 2008, and British Steel as well as “renewables”.

Gunga Din
May 24, 2014 10:40 am

Here’s a thought. The “greens” are for all things natural and are always calling for “renewable” energy. They are also against coal and oil.
Aren’t coal and oil natural? Weren’t they formed by natural processes? Unless those natural processes have ceased, coal and oil are being slowly renewed.
Just a thought I don’t recall being brought up before.

Anything is possible
May 24, 2014 11:15 am

GISS and the adjustment for Urbanization – this is a fun read :

May 24, 2014 11:20 am

Ren. Thanks very much, that is an excellent graph. So the surface area of Antarctic ice in their Autumn is at an all time high. The AGW’ers can’t even get facts right, because they were banging on about the collapse of the Western ice shelf earlier in the week, which clearly isn’t going to happen, because the Sun is still moving North and will be until 21st June!

May 24, 2014 11:35 am

UKIP (Chris Monckton’s party) gains in local elections (although share down from last year) bode well for 2015 general. The Guardian says that no one knows how a fourth competitive party will affect outcome of races in a first past the post system.

May 24, 2014 11:53 am

Anything is possible says:
May 24, 2014 at 11:15 am
Thanks! Abstract:
“NASA GISS are currently the only group calculating global temperature estimates that explicitly adjust their weather station data for urbanization biases. In this study, their urbanization adjustment procedure was considered.
“A number of serious problems were found with their urbanization adjustments:
1.) The vast majority of their adjustments involved correcting for \urban cooling”, whereas urbanization bias is predominantly a warming bias.
2.) The net e ffect of their adjustments on their global temperature estimates was unrealistically low, particularly for recent decades, when urbanization bias is expected to have increased.
3.) When a sample of highly urbanized stations was tested, the adjustments successfully removed warming bias for the 1895-1980 period, but left the 1980s-2000s period eff ectively unadjusted.
“In an attempt to explain these unexpected problems, a critical assessment of their adjustment procedure was carried out. Several serious flaws in their procedure were identi fied, and recommendations to overcome these flaws were given.
“Overall, NASA GISS’ urbanization adjustments were found to be seriously flawed, unreliable and inadequate. Until their adjustment approach is substantially improved, their global temperature estimates should be treated with considerable caution.”
But you already knew that shameless lying was going on.

May 24, 2014 11:58 am

Gunga Din says:
Aren’t coal and oil natural? Weren’t they formed by natural processes? Unless those natural processes have ceased, coal and oil are being slowly renewed.
Just a thought I don’t recall being brought up before.

I thought of that when i read this:
as always,
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments

May 24, 2014 12:12 pm
May 24, 2014 12:34 pm

davidmhoffer says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:35 am
Chris Edwards says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:25 am
The effect of slightly increased traces of carbon dioxide on other gases in the atmosphere is even less significant when you consider that the percentages commonly quoted are for dry air. Water vapor content varies from over 40,000 ppm in the tropics to trace amounts at the poles.
By volume, dry air contains ~780,840 ppm nitrogen, 209,470 oxygen, 9340 argon, 395 carbon dioxide, 18 neon, five helium & small amounts of other gases. Call it 7808 N2 molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules, 2095 O2, 93 Ar & now almost four CO2, with the rest negligible. So nature doesn’t really notice the extra molecule of CO2 (up from about three to four) per 10,000 dry air molecules gained since AD 1850, especially with 400 or more molecules of the GHG water vapor in the tropical mix.

May 24, 2014 12:51 pm

I think it’s pretty poor. It depends on where the Icelandic lows or highs sit. When they are in a certain position cold weather affects much of the northern hemisphere whilst the arctic itself is relatively warm and vice versa.
Cet provides a reasonably proxy for NH temps according to many scientists and that is because Britain is in effect a giant weathervane affected by winds, pressure systems, rainfall, jet stream etc.It often runs counter cyclical to the arctic.
I don’t see that the arctic has the same parameterNDEA Britain and don’t really think ice cores have any great credibility.

May 24, 2014 1:18 pm

I have been complaining that this site refuses to allow me to use my WordPress account but no one seemed to pay much attention to my story. Now Steve Goddard is complaining of the same issue.
Can anyone here use the WordPress button to log on and post here anymore?

george e. conant
May 24, 2014 1:39 pm

Gunga Din, there is also the distinct possibility / probability that petroleum is not a fossil fuel at all , rather , an abiotic produced material from the intense crustal pressures below ground. Tectonic plates pressing and grinding together literally squeezing oil out into fissures and making pools of oil deep below. So oil can be thought of as a mineral product, coal is truly a fossil fuel so far as I know. Matter is made from electrons , neutrons and protons (among other particles I reckon) my thought is YES , burning these materials are more or less renewable. Oil perhaps will never run out thus peak oil in my thinking is highly unlikely.

May 24, 2014 1:56 pm

G’day guys n gals (any around BTW?),
I do not know if you have been bombarded with the solar roads, but I have. Between the maintenance, cleaning and efficiency I think this to be one of the smartest less applicable ideas around. But it is my 1,000ft opinion. I just can’t see them working:

May 24, 2014 1:57 pm

Gavin Schmidt on Revkins’s DotEarth:
The models are always wrong but they’re wonderful

May 24, 2014 2:01 pm

Science invoked with great authority to show that CO2 is guilty. WUWT disparaged en passant. Where are the holes in the argument?

May 24, 2014 2:23 pm

Gunga Din says:
Aren’t coal and oil natural? Weren’t they formed by natural processes? Unless those natural processes have ceased, coal and oil are being slowly renewed.
Just a thought I don’t recall being brought up before.
“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.”
Oh, no! Now I’m a “Fossel Fuel” Denier.

May 24, 2014 2:27 pm

“Oil, The 4th Renewable Resource”, Shawn Alli (November 20, 2012), 174 pages
“The first and last book you’ll ever need to understand oil and the myth of fossil fuels. The myth of fossil fuels and peak oil has been a part of the North American lifestyle for almost 100 years. Beginning first in the schools, children are anxious for an education but instead are indoctrinated to believe this deception. As a student grows up they hear the same message propagating through governments, media and various interest groups, eventually accepting it as a scientific fact. But the truth is now within your grasp in finding this book. In Oil, The 4th Renewable Resource, you’ll learn: o How the myth of fossil fuels begins.
o How oil corporations are taking advantage of this myth.
o The beginning of the abiotic oil theory in 1877.
o How the myth of global warming and oil corporations go hand in hand.
o Which renewable resource is the best.
o And what actions you can take to affect change in the schools and government policy.”

The Other Phil
May 24, 2014 2:50 pm

Franciso, thanks for the link. Very entertaining.

May 24, 2014 3:00 pm

So nature doesn’t really notice the extra molecule of CO2 (up from about three to four) per 10,000 dry air molecules gained since AD 1850, especially with 400 or more molecules of the GHG water vapor in the tropical mix.
This is a common misunderstanding. As you rise in altitude, temperatures fall. That causes water to precipitate out. The higher you go, the less water vapour there is, and the more significant CO2 becomes in terms of ratio between the two. The bulk of the poorly named greenhouse effect thus occurs above the altitudes where water vapour exists in any significant amount.

May 24, 2014 3:56 pm

I change my mind! Could this man be wrong twice? We will have to wait and see.

My 1975 ‘Cooling World’ Story Doesn’t Make Today’s Climate Scientists Wrong
…….(Inside Science) – “The central fact is that, after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” – Newsweek: April 28, 1975
That’s an excerpt from a story I wrote about climate science that appeared almost 40 years ago. Titled “The Cooling World,” it was remarkably popular; in fact it might be the only decades-old magazine story about science ever carried onto the set of a late-night TV talk show……

May 24, 2014 4:11 pm

Bloke down the pub says:
May 24, 2014 at 6:33 am

I’ve just been watching an episode of Coast Australia, the BBC series that’s migrated to the antipodes. One of the talking heads on it was Tim Flannery. Good to see that Auntie found employment for him after he lost his job in Tony Abbots cuts. Te Hee.

Coast is a visually excellent series and Flannery seems to have been kept on a short leash.
iPlayer via Media Hint

May 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Humans may soon become hungry Zombie apocalypse cannibals according to Paul Ehrlich in a new prediction. There will also be resource wars.

Daily Mail – 23 May 2014
Will overpopulation drive us to eat our own DEAD? Controversial academic claims humanity is moving towards cannibalism at ‘ridiculous speed’
…..’We will soon be asking is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry?,’ he told HuffPost live host Josh Zepps.
He added that humanity is ‘moving in that direction with a ridiculous speed.
‘In other words between now and 45 years from now, 2.5 billion people will be added to the planet.
‘We are moving towards resource wars.

Steve Oregon
May 24, 2014 4:47 pm

A curious question.
If Mann and Trenberth discovered iron clad scientific evidence that CO2 emissions were meaningless to the climate would they tell anyone?

Lil Fella from OZ
May 24, 2014 5:05 pm

What disturbs me most in this whole climate change debate is that many good people (such as have appeared on the web page) have had to give up many years of their life, at least 18 years stating the truth about science while on the other side it is a deceptive action filled with fabrication ‘science.’ In many cases it could be well over a quarter of their productive life!!! I would very much like to thank them for their sustained efforts.

May 24, 2014 5:21 pm

worth noting:
23 May: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: No gas found in the Weald basin: Does this spell the end of the Government’s dream of a fracking revolution?
The Government’s dream of kickstarting a fracking revolution has suffered a major setback after a survey of one of the UK’s great shale gas hopes found no evidence of gas in the area.
And while the same survey – of the Weald basin, stretching from Wiltshire to Kent – did find an estimated 4.4 billion barrels of oil, the scientist who oversaw the project admitted it would be so difficult to extract that the basin would be unlikely to yield even 0.5 per cent of the oil so far extracted from the North Sea.
Robert Gatliff, director of energy and marine geoscience at the British Geological Survey, which produced the report, said: “It’s not a huge bonanza. But we have to see what happens.” He added: “It is going to be a challenge for the industry to get it out.”
The North Sea has produced about 40bn barrels of oil since the 1970s and is likely to yield between three billion and 24 billion more, according to industry estimates. But Mr Gatliff expects the Weald basin to yield no more than 220m barrels of oil, based on a generous extraction rate of about 5 per cent of the total estimated “resource”. This is less oil than Britain consumes in six months.
Asked if the findings were a let-down for the Government, Energy minister Michael Fallon said: “It’s not a let-down or a let-up. It is what it is.” …
Dr Robert Gross, director of the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology at Imperial College London, said: “This survey underlines the need to keep a sense of perspective about the prospects for land-based fossil fuel production in the UK. It is highly unlikely that the UK will replicate the US experience in the foreseeable future.”
Bob Ward, director of policy at the London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute, said the findings “do not substantiate the continuing hype surrounding the UK’s shale gas and oil resources”…
The UK government is encouraging the industry, which has yet to produce any shale hydrocarbons on a commercial scale, by offering tax breaks to producers and financial incentives to local communities. Today, it proposed changing trespass laws to allow frackers to drill under households without their permission and an extra £20,000 of compensation to affected communities per horizontal well.
22 May: Bloomberg: EIA Cuts Monterey Shale Estimates on Extraction Challenges
By Naureen S. Malik and Zain Shauk
The Energy Information Administration slashed its estimate of recoverable reserves from California’s Monterey Shale by 96 percent, saying oil from the largest U.S. formation will be harder to extract than previously anticipated…
New production methods may eventually unlock the formation and make it possible to economically extract the resources, Sieminski said. “The rock is there, the technology isn’t there.”

May 24, 2014 5:59 pm

Steve Oregon says:
May 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm
A curious question.
If Mann and Trenberth discovered iron clad scientific evidence that CO2 emissions were meaningless to the climate would they tell anyone?

We’ll have a clue in their reaction to this paper:

Latitude says:
May 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm
Thursday, May 8, 2014
New paper questions the ‘basic physics’ underlying climate alarm
A forthcoming paper published in Progress in Physics has important implications for the ‘basic physics’ of climate change. Physicist Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s paper(s) show the assumption that greenhouse gases and other non-blackbody materials follow the blackbody laws of Kirchhoff, Planck, and Stefan-Boltzmann is incorrect, that the laws and constants of Planck and Boltzmann are not universal and widely vary by material or different gases. Dr. Robitaille demonstrates CO2 and water vapor act in the opposite manner of actual blackbodies [climate scientists falsely assume greenhouse gases act as true blackbodies], demonstrating decreasing emissivity with increases in temperature. True blackbodies instead increase emissivity to the 4th power of temperature, and thus the blackbody laws of Kirchhoff, Planck, and Stefan-Boltzmann only apply to true blackbodies, not greenhouse gases or most other materials. The significance to the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ is that the climate is less sensitive to both CO2 and water vapor since both are less ‘greenhouse-like’ emitters and absorbers of IR radiation as temperatures increase.

May 24, 2014 6:05 pm

Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says: “I have been complaining that this site refuses to allow me to use my WordPress account but no one seemed to pay much attention to my story…Can anyone here use the WordPress button to log on and post here anymore?”
This has been a pain in the bew-tocks for well over a year. I have multiple WordPress blogs so I can keep the political shit all in one place. Here’s how I log into WUWT: I log out of all my blogs. I open my main blog account and log in. I then open WUWT and make sure I’m not signed in here with the wrong account, If I am, I log that account out (upper right), close WUWT, then open it again. At this point, I’m usually able to comment, unless WP has timed me out on my blog. Often I have to use the Change option here, below the Leave a Reply window, and log in to my WP account AGAIN, in order to comment.
If that doesn’t work, I howl like a wolf, drink water with the moon’s reflection in it and shake my juju stick while wearing a debbil mask and a loincloth and dancing widdershins around the fire.
All of these procedures are about equally effective.
Note: WordPress doesn’t track your accounts by user name. It’s your eddress that counts. Every WP blog should be set up with a different user name and user eddress. Too bad they didn’t tell you about that. You have to get into your WP account info and edit it. Don’t forget the juju stick.
‘Nother Note: It’s probably best not to log into any WordPress accounts with “keep me logged in” checked if you’re going to comment elsewhere..
[Ah, that’s the problem. Dancing windershins only works if your center-of-gravity is upside down on the other side of the equator. But you still have to bruise yourself below the knee. 8<) .mod]

Gunga Din
May 24, 2014 6:32 pm

jorgekafkazar says:
May 24, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:

I’m glad someone responded to Mark. I wanted to but I had no info that might help.
PS When I was a kid Jujubes were one of my favorite candies to get at the snack bar when we went to the movies. I never knew they came in a stick!

May 24, 2014 7:02 pm

Open thread, here goes… was the meteor shower a bust for everyone else last night or was it my crummy vantage point? I saw one outstanding meteor at 1:50am Eastern Standard Time and thought “Aw riiight! Here we go!” then nada, bupkiss, zippo. I thought I might, maybe, coulda seen a couple of other very faint streaks but I can really only count that one excellent meteor.
We have some light pollution around here but it’s not all that bad and the night was virtually cloudless. Anyone get a good show or was it a bust for all?

May 24, 2014 7:34 pm

I am looking for authoritative articles about Great Lakes ice. I am apparently looking in the wrong places because I am not finding much.
My wife and her sister are traveling on the UP and have asked some questions that , as usual, I can’t answer with the expectation that I will find answers. This is my failure alarm.
I spent the winter of 1956-57 on Lake Michigan at the Naval Training Center in North Chicago and that year it looked like the ice was pretty thick, but had to judge from the beach because of wind-driven folding and ridges.
The specific questions I’ve been asked:
How thick does it get? (on average, maximum)
Do the lake ice over every year? What has been the pattern for the last 60 years or so?
When does it normally clear (I found one place that said “March”)?
Do they all ice up? At about the same time?

May 24, 2014 7:36 pm

“…thick, but haRd to judge from the beach…”

Retired Engineer John
May 24, 2014 7:39 pm

This may be a stupid comment, but has anyone noticed that in the tropical and mid latitudes, we are having fewer and weaker tornados and hurricanes, lower accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and the Arctic and Antarctic regions seem to be having more cyclones? Is this really what’s happening and does anybody know the reason?

May 24, 2014 8:03 pm

23 May: Bloomberg: Julie Bykowicz: Steyer’s Climate Group Targets 7 Republicans for Attacks
The super-political action committee financed by billionaire and former money manager Tom Steyer will try to raise climate change as an election issue in four U.S. Senate races and three gubernatorial contests this year, the group announced this morning.
NextGen Climate Action Committee had raised $9.3 million through the end of April to spend on 2014 elections — almost all of it from Steyer himself…
NextGen will aim its advertising at seven Republicans who have expressed doubt that human activity contributes to climate change or haven’t stated clearly their belief in it.
The group’s Senate candidate targets are Colorado’s Cory Gardner, Iowa’s Joni Ernst, Michigan’s Terri Lynn Land, and former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who is running in New Hampshire. The super-PAC, which can raise and spend unlimited sums, also plans to attack Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, Florida Governor Rick Scott and Maine Governor Paul LePage.
“The debate on climate change is settled: it is here, it is human-caused, and it is already having a devastating impact on our communities, but we need to accelerate the level of political support to address this critical issue before it’s too late,” Steyer said in a statement. “This means making politicians feel the heat — in their campaign coffers and at the polls.” …
Steyer has pledged $50 million of his own money, while trying to raise another $50 million from wealthy donors for the campaign. Through the end of April, FEC reports show, he’d netted just one big check, $10,000 from Mitchell Berger, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, lawyer and top Democratic fundraiser…

May 24, 2014 8:17 pm

***B’berg’s Drajem & Chediak think we’ll believe this “acceptance” is “unlikely”:
23 May: Bloomberg: Obama Divides Power Players With Rule Utilities Accept
By Mark Drajem and Mark Chediak
The Obama administration’s upcoming greenhouse gas rules are gaining acceptance from an ***unlikely quarter — power companies…
Power company executives, while cautioning that they aren’t privy to the plan’s details, greet the Environmental Protection Agency’s promise of a flexible approach with sentiments ranging from eager endorsement to grudging acceptance…
“Our goal is to work with EPA to make sure the rule works,” said Joe Dominguez, senior vice president of Exelon Corp. (EXC) “There needs to be a pathway towards meaningful reductions.” …
For some power companies, the rules will help save nuclear reactors or boost investments in wind farms…
“We see a potential upside,” said Chuck Barlow, vice president of environmental strategy and policy for Entergy, which owns coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants, including the Indian Point facility north of New York City. “It would be an opportunity for our nuclear facilities.” …
That view isn’t shared by lobbyists for coal producers such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) who call the EPA plan the latest salvo in a “war on coal” that would result in lost jobs and less reliable energy. …
Exelon chief executive Chris Crane said the rules will give his company a chance to go to state regulators and talk about how its nuclear fleet, which is suffering because of low electricity prices, could thrive…
“Peabody supports technology advancement and continuous emissions improvement, while opposing proposed rules that would punish electricity consumers and act outside of the bounds of the law,” said Beth Sutton, a spokeswoman for Peabody.
Lobbyists for coal producers such as Peabody and related companies met in private with administration officials last week to warn against taking a broad approach, and said the EPA’s plan could result in an over-reliance on natural gas, according to a presentation prepared for the meeting and provided to Bloomberg. ..
however, some of us have memories:
3 pages: 23 Aug 2012: NYT: Eric Lipton: Ties to Obama Aided in Access for Big Utility
Early in the Obama administration, a lobbyist for the Illinois-based energy producer Exelon Corporation proudly called it “the president’s utility.” …
Exelon’s top executives were early and frequent supporters of Mr. Obama as he rose from the Illinois State Senate to the White House. John W. Rogers Jr., a friend of the president’s and one of his top fund-raisers, is an Exelon board member. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s longtime political strategist, once worked as an Exelon consultant, and Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayor and Mr. Obama’s former chief of staff, helped create the company through a corporate merger in 2000 while working as an investment banker…
White House records show that Exelon executives were able to secure an unusually large number of meetings with top administration officials at key moments in the consideration of environmental regulations that have been drafted in a way that hurt Exelon’s competitors, but curb the high cost of compliance for Exelon and its industry allies…

May 24, 2014 9:27 pm

H.R. says:
May 24, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Ditto on the one good flash. Otherwise only several faint streaks. The one good streak was around 1:50 am Pacific time.

May 24, 2014 9:43 pm

According to this entry from late April, the Skeptical Science website believes that there is no ‘pause’ after all:
“We found that when the HadCRUT4 data are extended to cover the whole globe, some of the apparent slowdown in global warming over the past 16 years disappears.”
They believe that the adjustments to the record have been too strong and have been ‘suppressing’ temperatures. Personally I am skeptical as Anthony has shown that urban heat bias has not been properly accounted for. And that temperature records are not of a high enough standard for scientists to draw conclusions.
So I guess we can call off the search for the missing heat that supposedly dwells in the bottom of the ocean?

Paul Vaughan
May 25, 2014 12:29 am

Reinterpreting ERSST EOFs 1-4
It’s a concise technical document that includes an alert about Mann’s clever trick to redefine the Atlantic to match Trenberth’s deep ocean “missing heat” narrative.

Kelvin Vaughan
May 25, 2014 3:51 am

If you removed all the greenhouse gasses from the Earth wouldn’t the atmosphere warm up by conduction from the surface? Wouldn’t the surface be hotter as the infra red from the Sun would not be attenuated?

May 25, 2014 5:15 am
May 25, 2014 8:03 am

@goldminor says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:27 pm
H.R. says:
May 24, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Ditto on the one good flash. Otherwise only several faint streaks. The one good streak was around 1:50 am Pacific time.
Whew! Thanks, goldminor. I was hoping it wasn’t just me. I also have had a chance to ask my son about it. He and his wife went out to a reservoir away from town so they could look across the water; guaranteed no trees and little light pollution. They only spotted a few faint streaks.
So much for “100 and maybe 1000 per hour.”

May 25, 2014 8:06 am

Kelvin Vaughan says:
May 25, 2014 at 3:51 am

If you removed all the greenhouse gasses from the Earth wouldn’t the atmosphere warm up by conduction from the surface? Wouldn’t the surface be hotter as the infra red from the Sun would not be attenuated?

Most of the energy from the Sun comes in as shortwave radiation, not surprisingly, around visible wavelengths, as evolution optimized for that. While the Sun’s surface puts out a lot more IR than the Earths’s surface, the Sun only occupies an angular size of 0.5° and that results in the Earth radiating a lot more IR than it receives. See
If the atmosphere and clouds didn’t block so much incoming radiation, the surface would warm up a little.

May 25, 2014 8:59 am

That video is certainly interesting and the idea probably has some practical applications, but it also mentions nothing about cost. How much money should we divert from schools, hospitals, emergency aid, … public employee pensions, to fund this dream?

Reply to  Canman
May 25, 2014 9:34 am

You know, this is one of the major problems of the IPCC/AGW/EPA/etc… scam. Resources that are wasted on useless technologies (i.e. carbon capture/sequestration) could be used on development of new energy sources and technologies. I am all for solar and nuclear, within certain applications as the technology stands now. Solar for road signs, remote well heads, barns, ornamental lights and other low energy non-critical uses.
Nuclear for power generation, fossil for mobile and transport and so forth.
As time goes and need increases (opening new markets and financial needs/resources) the technological development and engineering ingenuity will take care of advances; as long as the choke and negativity from so called environmentalists is not held down our throats the way it is.

Reply to  Canman
May 25, 2014 9:38 am

Those inventors live about 30 minutes from me here in north Idaho. My guess is it would be hugely expensive, fraught with problems and is never going to happen unless the Feds mandate it. Cool idea though.

May 25, 2014 9:49 am

In response to video posted by ch, May 24th 2.01 pm (and the 800 year lag one by the same video author)
This is very good science-based PROPAGANDA, but does not give a balanced scientific account. The key “evidence” is claimed to be the starring role of CO2 in getting the Earth out of ice ages.
The video downplays the roles of water vapour and clouds, and the changes in albedo as the snow/ice melt. Several warming effects occur all at the same time as the Earth comes out of ice ages. The alarmist view picks on the CO2 effect and claims it to be dominant, and in control of the other effects. My sceptic view is that there is considerable uncertainty about the sizes of the warming effects, and that CO2 may have been little more than a spectator, rather than the main driver.
Even if CO2 had a large warming effect during ice ages (cold and dry), there are reasons to expect that effect to be much less significant now, when things are warm and wet. This is the “saturation” of the greenhouse effect, which some claim to have “debunked”, but which in reality is very important at todays CO2 and water vapour levels.

May 25, 2014 9:55 am

Take an informal survey of your associates. Ask if they think Arctic ice and Greenland glaciers have melted substantially melted at present. Ask what they think caused that. Then start talking science and facts. Your should be alert for the eyes to glaze over as soon as they see where you are going. Why does that happen? In order to accept what you are saying there is a huge psychological barrier. They would have to accept that the government, the media, the UN, their president, the news anchor person, their teachers, scientist, etc., etc. have been lying to them for years and years about a very serious issue. Even if they could accept, then they would have to ask why. Very scarey. It’s never going to happen until those authorities themselves admit they’ve been lying, exaggerating, were in error.

May 25, 2014 11:08 am

Nuclear power has no chance of increasing its share of generation, as shown in my articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power.
The TANP articles show that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, (13) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized in at least 6 ways but still cannot compete, (14), more evidence of economic inferiority as projects are cancelled, reactor vendors grow desperate, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore high capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base, (15), safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance, (16) there are many, many near-misses each year in nuclear power plants, with more and more to come as the plants age beyond their design life, (17) there are serious safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel, (18) spent fuel reprocessing has many safety issues, (19) nuclear plants create adverse health effects on people and other living things, (20) disasters via meltdown or explosion at Chernobyl, (21) Three Mile Island, and (22) Fukushima, (23) a near-disaster occurred at San Onofre resulting in permanent shut down, (24) there is a similar looming disaster at St. Lucie, (25) the inherent unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act, and (26) the serious public impacts of evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or “extraordinary nuclear occurrence” in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act.

Reply to  Roger Sowell
May 25, 2014 12:34 pm

It will be a few days, got a few work trips the next few weeks, but I will try to address each and every one of your points (unless somebody beats me to it) and read your article.
While there is a lot of truth on what you say, there is also a huge benefit to the environment and economy should this type of power generation was allowed to be developed. “ALLOWED” being the operative word here, because greenies freak out at anything that is not ‘green’ in their eyes (they seem to miss the obvious of the dark side of renewables). I think you oversimplified some of the issues and neglected a whole lot behind others.

Scott Pellinen
May 25, 2014 1:52 pm

I had a chance to visit the Lake Superior ice pack this weekend. Stuck an 8 foot oar straight down by a large iceberg and could not touch the bottom of it. This is some serious ice, not skim ice that’s for sure. The larger icebergs sticking up.a few feet above the waterline could be down 20 feet or more imo. With cool calm weather that ice could be around until the 4th of July or later.

May 25, 2014 5:23 pm

SC-Slywolf says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:02 am
john says:
May 24, 2014 at 7:01 am
India hits U.S., China with solar imports anti-dumping duties
Does Pachauri have iterests in Indian solar?
I would Imagine he does but that could be in a blind trust. I would say he throws some weight in the financial sector(s) in India and was amazed to see he was involved in MEOR (Microbial Enhanced Oilfield Recovery) work for the oil industry. (see below).
From Wikipedia:
Pachauri was on the Board of Governors, Shriram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation (September 1987); the Executive Committee of the India International Centre, New Delhi (1985 onwards); the Governing Council of the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi (October 1987 onwards); and the Court of Governors, Administrative Staff College of India (1979–81) and advises such companies as Pegasus Capital Advisors, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Toyota, Deutsche Bank and NTPC.[12] He has served as member of many societies and commissions. He has been the Member of Board of the International Solar Energy Society (1991–1997), World Resources Institute Council (1992), while Chairman of the World Energy Council (1993–1995), President and then Chairman of the International Association for Energy Economics (1988–1990), and the President of the Asian Energy Institute (Since 1992).[13] He was a part-time advisor to the United Nations Development Programme (1994—1999) in the fields of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources.[14] In July 2001, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India.[14]
In 2005, Jack Babcock founded Glori Oil Ltd. in Houston, Texas based on Pachauri’s MEOR (patented as BEOR in 2006) process (see Glori Energy filed SEC S-1 October 2011). Glori Oil Ltd. engages in the recovery of oil trapped in reservoirs in existing oil wells using carbon dioxide as a driver in a process known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR). In May 2011, Glori Oil Limited changed its name to Glori Energy Inc…[15] By 2007, Pachauri’s MEOR was deemed unsuccessful, and Pachauri and Glori are no longer associated.

May 26, 2014 12:07 am

Chris Edwards says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:25 am
Can someone here help and answer this? IF humans are causing a problem burning too much fossil fuel for the planet to handle (I doubt this) then would not the O2 content of the atmosphere be going down? And if the powers that be really thought that CO2 was bad would they not ban the catalytic converters we all are forced to use (for very little reason these days) that magnify the output of CO2 from our cars and trucks?
Chris I too am interested in the C02 and water producing Catalytic Converter, I have seen a few references on advocate sites (for the manufacture and replacement of same) and some have had links to an EPA internet site where the EPA was blaming the converters for the rapid increase in C02, but when you click on those old links they take you Nowhere, This seems rather strange as I could find a report by Dr Hal Campbell, Professor California State University – Humbolt College of Natural Resources and Science. His paper laments the lack of progress in replacing the converters with newer technology that would achieve significant reductions to so called greenhouse gases and cites in his paper.
Quote [In April of 2006, STWA reported that the EcoChargR had successfully passed EURO3 emission standards, besting their previous performance, during tests conducted at the National Motorcycle Quality Inspection & Certification Center in Shanghai, China. (Save the World Air Inc., 2006)
Scientific confirmation of the physics associated with the application of short-pulse magnetic fields to crude oil and derivative fuels (gasoline and diesel fuel) have been presented in two leading industry journals over the past two years. The results of this extensive scientific study were published, and are available for review, in the Journal of Energy and Fuels (Reducing the Viscosity of Crude Oil by Pulsed Electric or Magnetic Field, R. Tao and X. Xu), and also in the Journal of Modern Physics B (Viscosity Reduction in Liquid Suspensions by Electric and Magnetic Fields, R. Tao and X. Xu)] end quote.
He implies that tests at an EPA recognised facility
Quote [Independent tests of this technology were conducted at the EPA recognized Northern California Diagnostics Laboratory in 2001 on an early model Ford to test for effects on older automobiles, that did not use catalytic converter technology. These tests were conducted in strict conformance to EPA testing protocols, which do not provide for alteration of fuel-air mixture, resulted an amazing 71% reduction in overall exhaust emissions, while also garnering a correspondingly impressive 49% increase in gas mileage for the test vehicle. These tests confirm that integration of high strength magnetic fields within the fuel delivery and pre-combustion process could be used successfully to reduce exhaust emissions and thereby lessen the need for catalytic incineration of unburned exhaust gases].end quote
I tried to find some independent confirmation, but all that is out there is the usual Wikki claims of conspiracy and dead end to links and no links to official testing at the EPA at all which is surprising given the claims and/or anything pertaining to pulsed electric or magnetic fields and fuel manipulation by these methods.
I also did a cursory search on our hosts site thinking that this issue would be covered somewhere, it probably is but I could not find it.
Is it just a whacko claim that has been debunked or one ignored by the EPA as too simple a solution, and one that would interfere with the urgency/need of taxing evil C02.
Like you I would be happy to see some testing of the claims even though I don’t see rising C02 as any real relevance in the real rather than alarmist world. Does anyone have working links to such accredited work?

May 26, 2014 12:10 am

One reply landed in moderation…

May 26, 2014 1:54 am

This will be my second question (comment) for the weekend–I mean it o be a serious question, but the first got no answer as usual, so I do not have high hopes for this one–especially since it is almost 0400 local and I have been sipping quite a lot of cheap port…..
I would like to know an approximate relation between two numbers:
The first number is the sum of all GHGs (in tons) generated by burning stuff (wood, coal, oil, gas, other) including that incidental to windmills and nukes.
The second number is the sum of all GHGs (in tons) generated by rising bread, fermenting bear, wine and whiskey, undisturbed pea bogs, permafrost, animal digestive tracts, volcanoes, deep sea vents, and so on.

May 26, 2014 11:19 am

Thanks GungaDin for pointing out that coal and oil are natural.
Even my good brother, who has tended to believe alarmists, has pointed that out.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
May 26, 2014 1:06 pm

Coal and oil are natural. So are humans. We do not exist outside of nature. Nor is anything we do unnatural. Eg., NYC is the natural result of humans striving to promote their comfort and well-being, no less than bees in a hive or ants in a hill.

May 26, 2014 6:24 pm

comment image
An image of the Antarctic (er, Lake Superior) see ice for your viewing pleasure. 8<0
Warning: Beached whale alert.

May 26, 2014 6:58 pm

Two pretty random thoughts:
First, having experienced (I believe) bot old and new formats this weekend I’d like to state for the record that I prefer the old way–if, as is my wont, I visit several times an update cycle, the four top stories will as a maximum be interesting the first trip. (One of my continuing annoyances with “Facebook” is its refusal to leave my setting to “Most recent Stories” unmolested instead of setting things back to “Top stories” every time I look away.
You might be surprised at how seldom MY view of the top stores agrees with anybody else’s.
Second, I think it was here that I saw somebody talking (from a Malthusian Fallacy viewpoint) about Mather Gaia running out of molecular oxygen….
As in almost all possible topics, I am without certification here, but it seems reasonable-upon-inspection to me that there may well be a system-at-equilibrium here.
If we accept the usual beliefs (which I think I know to in error in the details) that plants use carbon dioxide, water, and Other Stuff to live and grow and conquer; and produce molecular oxygen, water, and Other Stuff (does that make water a catalyst?) Similarly, animals use molecular oxygen, water, and Other Stuff to live and grow and conquer; and produce carbon dioxide, water and Other Stuff.
So if there turns out to be a short-fall in molecular oxygen and an (relative) excess of carbon dioxide, the plants will thrive, and (or) the animals die off and equilibrium over the long haul will be preserved. And if there turns out to be a shortage of carbon dioxide…well, let’s leave that as a homework exercise.
It seems to me that the real worry vacuum has to do with “what if we run out of water, or Other Stuff?

May 27, 2014 11:44 am

Over at First Things, yesterday, I discovered an unusual piece about “spin” of all things as it promoted the 97 percent meme!
“the 97 percent or so of climate scientists who say we have a big manmade problem …”
I posted a link to the current article in WSJ by Roy Spencer. Quoted Richard Lindzen and John Christy. My posts were deleted. The moderator posted that posts about the 97 percent would be deleted. I asked why the censorship and am now blacklisted from First Things with which I have a long history of posting.

Reply to  Michael Snow
May 27, 2014 2:44 pm

This is a damned shame! I’ll double check when I get to that part of the daily reading list, but I think I read a couple of people at First Things.
I am really going to miss The Anchoress.

May 27, 2014 12:40 pm

Michael Snow,
That is despicable censorship. The alarmists cannot refute the science posted by skeptics, so their latest tactic is to censor it out of existence. Fortunately, that blog has little traffic, so they don’t matter.
But I was curious to see if they would censor a straightforward comment that cited a few facts. So I posted this comment there, verbatim:

The “carbon” scare should not be a conservative/liberal issue. Rather, scientific evidence should decide the facts.
CO2 [“carbon”] has been steadily rising. However, global temperature [T] has been flat to declining for many years now:
There was only a short term correlation between CO2 and T, between about 1978 – 1997. Since then, there has been no global warming. Any warming due to human CO2 emissions is too tiny to even measure. There are no empirical measurements that separate and quantify the degree of warming resulting from human emissions.
Finally, all available scientific evidence shows that the rise in CO2 has been:
1. Completely harmless, and
2. Beneficial to the biosphere
No one has been able to identify any global harm from anthropogenic CO2. Thus, CO2 is harmless. And the planet is measurably greening, due directly to the rise in beneficial CO2 — an airborne fertilizer.
The biosphere is currently starved of CO2, which has been up to twenty times higher in the past — during times when the planet teemed with life and diversity. More CO2 is better.
The ‘carbon’ scare is the basis for a UN-promoted global taxing agenda. It is a false alarm being sounded by governments, which are ravenous for the immense carbon taxes that could be raised.
But it is based on speculation and conjecture, not on measurable, testable scientific evidence. Because there is no such evidence. None. For all practical purposes, the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 can be completely disregarded in all Policy discussions. It is simply not a problem.

I wrote nothing about “the 97%”. I only pointed out some facts.
Good thing I made a copy, because when I checked half an hour later, my comment had disappeared. The lawyer who runs the blog had censored it out of existence.
That is the tactic that the alarmist crowd has adopted: do not allow readers to see anything except their carbon scare Narrative. The erstwhile Soviets would have approved.

May 27, 2014 3:05 pm

No, The Anchoress is NOT on First Things (wonder why I thought that?) and I can’t find a place to complain about …oooh! Wait! The other blogs I was worried about are on First Thoughts! Not First Things.
Never mind.

May 27, 2014 5:42 pm

Larry, The Anchoress used to be on First Things but, maybe a year ago, she moved it to Patheos, (I think) First Thoughts is the primary blog on First Things, among other blogs.

Reply to  Michael Snow
May 27, 2014 6:01 pm

I am not sure if I am less-confused than I was, or more %^)

%d bloggers like this: