Open Thread


I’m on travel today, and will be away from email for quite some time (unless the flight has WiFi).

I’ll be attending both the Cook and the Mann lecture at University of Bristol, along with a couple of other meetings.  Thanks sincerely to the WUWT readers that made this trip possible. I look forward to seeing all my UK friends very soon.

If anyone needs to contact me while I’m in the U.K. please use the WUWT contact form int he “About” menu above, which goes to web based mail.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 18, 2014 6:11 am

Have a good trip! There’s nothing like being shoehorned into an airplane seat for hours at a time. 😉

Steve R
Reply to  PaulH
September 18, 2014 7:45 pm

So. What kind of mischief can we cause while the boss is away?

September 18, 2014 6:12 am

Wish you well on your trip.
I suspect listening to Cook and Mann will be torture for you, but if you classify it under “know your enemy” you should be able to, uh, weather their ramblings.

José Tomás
Reply to  JohnWho
September 18, 2014 6:52 am

Penance is good for the soul 🙂

Harry Passfield
Reply to  JohnWho
September 18, 2014 12:41 pm

I do hope listening to Cook and Mann is tax-deductible!

September 18, 2014 6:13 am

Mann’s not having a very good week, is he?

Reply to  Ric Werme
September 18, 2014 6:23 am

Karma is a real female dog. 😉

Reply to  philjourdan
September 18, 2014 9:35 am

Karma will run over dogma.

Reply to  Ric Werme
September 18, 2014 8:44 pm

comment image:large

Reply to  dbstealey
September 19, 2014 9:12 am

By Jove, you have found it! The real Hokey stick!!!

September 18, 2014 6:16 am

I used data from the BP Factbook of World Energy to estimate the amount of humanity could put in the air if ALL the fossil fuel reserves listed in the BP data were used. After I wrote it I received a friend´s request to plot a comparison of the total production showed in the BP book and the refinery inputs. The plot shows something really interesting: refinery inputs are diverging from world liquids production, probably because the liquids being produced are increasingly ethane, propane, butane, and other light hydrocarbons which seem to bypass the refining system or are used in the petrochemical industry.
The work I did seems to show that CO2 concentration will be 627 ppm if we use of the reserves as documented in the BP report.
But what I wish to focus on is the apparent flattening of the liquids production curve once we remove the light hydrocarbons (NGL, the Qatar condensate, and the Bakken Light TIght oil). I realize this information can be criticized, but the trend can´t be ignored….
If something like this is really happening then we just can´t get to those really high CO2 concentrations because we may be running out of oil.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 18, 2014 6:48 am

Fernando, reserves are only the measured part of what’s there. It has a strict definition. Companies only measure enough reserves to give them 20 years or so production horizons. There is lots more. The new shale oil and gas resources being developed essentially in North America are very large and most countries have some of these. These resources are even large in Europe. This misconstruing what reserves mean is common in connection with minerals and metals as well – the Club of Rome used “reserves” to show we were going to run out of important metals before the year 2000.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 18, 2014 7:50 am

Gary, I´m fully aware of reserve definitions. The BP fact book includes a very heterogeneous family of reserve booking styles, and a lot of it doesn´t conform with SEC guidelines nor are they transparent. Private oil companies book as per SEC guidelines. Other companies book using different methods. As it turns out, the bulk of the world´s oil reserves are owned by companies which don´t allow a full view of their methods.
It is my professional opinion that BP´s data set includes the full proved plus probable volumes. Some may also include volumes which can´t be produced.
However, let´s avoid the argument over the techniques used to estimate the reserves for a bit. The key is to understand that IF those reserves shown in BP´s data book are used (and I include oil, gas, and coal) then the CO2 in the atmosphere would increase to say 620 to 630 ppm.
I also want to point out to the audience an interesting fact: No matter how we cut the numbers refinery inputs are definitely a lot flatter than the worldwide production figures we are being shown. Today´s production includes a significant NGL and super light condensates, and this light fraction is increasing (mostly because worldwide gas production is increasing).
After thinking about this for a while, I have to conclude a significant portion of this production either gets used to make plastics or if burned it generates less CO2 than oil (it has a slightly higher hydrogen content).
Like i wrote in the post I´m not heading anywhere in particular. I guess the main point we can make is that we do seem to be running out of oil, and that the IPCC “Business as usual” case (the RCP8.5) appears to have a very high oil production profile. I don´t think it can be achieved.
As for the new shale resourves, they will help a little bit. But shale resources require high prices. THis is particularly true outside the USA, where the industry isn´t nearly as efficient. Thus I suspect the oil price must rise to make the new slate of development candidates to be viable. The increased oil price in turn leads to less consumption. As far as the Climate Believers are concerned, the world has a self correcting mechanism they haven´t identified. Prices will have to go a lot higher to justify producing those oil and gas streams (and probably coal streams) they say we would be producing. SUch higher prices depress demand.
I think the prudent thing to do is to keep this in mind. Maybe there´s no argument at all, and in 20 to 30 years the main worry will be the high fuel prices and what the heck do we do about it?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 18, 2014 7:51 am

Gary, you are correct about proven reserves. The correct reserve estimate for future emission purposes is technically recoverable reserves. That is, by any known means at any cost.
You are wrong about how much TRR remains above proven and probable. EIA has done an analysis of 142 basins in 42 countries. It contains errors, all larger estimates than geologically correct. The present correct TRR for US shale oil is 9-15Bbbl. (Monterey was mostly and correctly re-excluded due to its folding and faulting, meaning horizontal drilling is not feasible.) That is much smaller that you seem to think. Current US consumption is 6.7Bbbl/yr (about 18.5mbpd).
Sort of puts things in perspective, rather than all the MSM misinformation.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 18, 2014 9:30 am

The TRR concept is vapor ware because there´s no uniform methodology being used by engineers who are very knowledgeable with the reservoir. This means the TRR numbers are all over the place. Furthermore, who cares if the number is “technically recoverable” at $700 per barrel? When I was asked to prepare a TRR number for a set of properties I suggested they use oil in place and get it over with. After all, if there´s no limit you can afford to go down there and carve out the rock, bring it to the surface, grind it up, and washed the oil out with solvents. See how ridiculous it can get?
As far as I´m concerned we are running out of resources, as oil prices increase so we can access more resources a replacement will kick in. Between the point when prices start their climb and the replacement becomes practical we will be in a world of pain. And this is why the IPCC RCP8.5 doesn´t make any sense.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 18, 2014 7:43 am

Fernando, your analysis is correct. All liquids includes a rising proportion of natural gas liquids ethane, propane, and butane. Only propane is sometimes used as a transportation fuel.
The peak in petroleum production (conventional plus unconventional shale and tar sands) will come sometime around 2020. That is because conventional production already peaked in 2008.
But coal, not petroleum,is still a larger overall contributor to CO2 emissions, since oil is a mix of hydrocarbons.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 7:56 am

Rud, I´d rather not get into a “Peak Oil” debate in Watt´s place. The post I prepared does show coal as the main contributor. I tried to look at the NGL market, and it seems a lot of it (such as ethane) is either sent to the petrochemical industry, or is currently burned because it lacks a market. This is a really sad state of affairs, because ethane is such a good feedstock for syngas. And if you give me syngas I can make you really nice liquid synfuels.
I do have to study coal a lot more before I get to understand it as much as I do oil and gas.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 9:02 am

It has been inevitable that we will run out of oil in a decade since 5 years before someone stuck a straw in the ground in Pennsylvania. I could show you pages of quotes. Dennis Meadows made his predictions ~1975. What were proven and potential reserves then? What are they now?
Peak Oil: Peek and ye shall find.

Tom Harley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 3:30 pm

Recent CSIRO research confirms a ‘gas-washing’ theory of oils:

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 18, 2014 7:46 am

Alberta has 3 trillion barrels. 400 billion is relatively easily accessible
I think they can get to 10 million barrels a day within 15 years.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 7:59 am

Sunshine the 3trillion Alberta tar sands figure is resource in place. The official Canadian Petroleum Association estimate of TRR is 280Bbbl, of which roughly half is economic at $100/bbl. Either via strip mining or SAGD. Remember a barrel of bitumen is only worth about 60% of light sweet crude, because it has to be hydro upgraded at a cost of about $20/bbl, and the resulting syncrude still only produces about 80% the equivalent ‘light’ product stream of gasoline, diesel, jet kerosene, motor oil, heating oil. That’s what happens when you start from tar.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 8:01 am

Sunshine, Alberta´s oil in place isn´t really connected to reserves reality. In other words, a lot of that oil can´t be produced. Neither can Alberta reach 10 million barrels per day within 15 years. There´s no viable market for the heavy oil, nor does the industry have infrastructure, such as the vessel fabricators to bulld the upgraders, or whatever you want to use to make the oil come out of the ground and get to market. Trust me, I spent time in Calgary and Edmonton as well.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 8:46 am

To Rud and Fernando:
To the layman (that would be me) the cries of “we’re running out of oil” have been echoing around since the early 70’s. Esoteric definitions of what a provable reserve is just confuse the situation. Claims that most unproven reserves would be too costly to recover (which would depress demand) are debunked by the size and success of the Alberta operation today. Those reserves were considered unrecoverable for many years.
Technology will continue to advance to allow us to get at those reserves economically. Deep ocean drilling, fracking and tar sands operations will continue to improve and cover demand.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 9:32 am

Autoguy, I didn´t make any claims in the 1970´s (In those days I was a recently graduated engineer). The problem I see is that people who don´t know ask us to peek. ANd those of us who do know what to do to get the oil out don´t know where to peek anymore. Or do you REALLY think it´s an endless resource?

David Ball
Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 1:10 pm

Fernando, are you discussing only oil sands or are you including drill-able oil?
What about wells that refill after time? Lateral flow?
Why is there oil in the bakken deposit? Should that rock contain oil?
How big are the oil sands in Saskatchewan?
I live in Calgary and what the geologists tell me off the record is completely different than what is being said here. It is something the oil companies don’t want people to know.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 2:26 pm

David Ball the BP fact book includes the extra heavy oil in Canada and in Venezuela. I’m fairly familiar with both, and I sense a lot of that oil they claim is proved will require higher prices.
How much oil is produced by these well you hear are “refilled”? Such behavior is usually the result of improper well design or operations. The key when discussing the oil needed to increase the co2 atmospheric fraction is to remember that it takes a huge volume to make a difference.
The Bakken has oil because it’s sufficiently porous and permeable. The Bakken isn’t a shale. Why as the question? There are no mysteries in this business to make a difference.
If anybody has doubts about this problem check what is happening to Chevron Texaco. I wrote the analysis and called it We Are Running Out of Oil. Hell, you don’t have to read it. To put it simply the major oil companies are producing less oil. Worldwide: incremental is mostly USA condensate, NGL, and the light tight oil. I prepared several alternate scenarios and I can’t get the CO2 to reach 650 ppm. We require too high a price to produce the marginal crudes. This subject somehow gets lost in the climate wars. I think we are arguing over nothing. In 50 years the big problem is going to be the mother of all energy shortages.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 3:36 pm

We are hearing that Saskatchewan (the province next door) has more heavy oil than Alberta. It is deeper than Alberta, but basically untouched.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 10:46 pm

@Fernando Leanme
In 50 years the big problem is going to be the mother of all energy shortages.

Come on. Don’t confuse energy with hydrocarbons. One ton of ordinary granite, the default stuff continents are made of has the same recoverable free energy content as fifty tons of coal (+133 tons of atmospheric oxygen). With abundant cheap energy one can convert limestone and water into hydrocarbon liquids as needed, it is simple chemistry. We shall not run out of either stone or seawater soon.
The only way to exhaust resources in a short time, no matter what technology you have, is unbounded exponential growth. However, population explosion was already over twenty years ago, number of people below the age of 15 has not increased in the last 2 decades. World population is still increasing, but that’s because of increasing life expectancy, a good thing after all. And it is definitely not explosive, for you can never produce more than one gammer or gaffer by simply getting old.
That’s because women are rational beings. With low enough infant mortality and some education &. freedom they are not hard pressed to spend their entire life in childbearing any more and wonder! they do grab the opportunity.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 19, 2014 3:29 am

Berényi Péter , we could try an experiment…see if you can trade one thousand tons of granite for one thousand tons of crude oil.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 19, 2014 3:46 am

Mad dog, there are huge hydrocarbon resources in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and also elsewhere. But these resources are too costly to extract. I´d like to maintain in focus my main theme: the problem isn´t really the lack of low quality resources. Those do exist. What we can´t figure out is how to extract them and sell them at a decent price. A decent price means whatever you, our dear market, can pay without going broke. The world doesn´t work very well if all our effort is devoted to producing fossil fuels (and this means energy).
To check whether the current price environment was insufficient to justify PRIVATE oil companies going after enough oil to keep production even (never mind growing) I reviewed the filings by large oil companies. I wrote a piece about Chevron Texaco, because they happen to be very well managed. And Chevron Texaco isn´t keeping up (their oil production is declining).
The OPEC nations do have some room, but I suspect there are two barriers: 1. Their reserves may be overstated, and 2. Their state oil companies don´t have the ability to increase production to cover the future gap. I´m not into giving you peak oil forecasts, nor do I suggest you start panicking. But there are clear signs the oil, gas, and probably coal production can´t increase to satisfy demand forever, and it thefossil fuel price increases too fast the world economy is shot to hell.
As far as global warming is concerned, this means there´s a limit to the amount of CO2 we can put in the air. I already mentioned I estimated 620 to 630 ppm would be the top end taking into account the BP resources. I revised the numbers, added additional light oil and NGL streams, and the end result was nearly identical.This means the focus should be on careful management of the fossil fuel resources.
I´m not into conspiracy theories, but maybe some individuals who see what I´m seeing are peddling global warming to convince people to use less fossil fuels for a completely different reason? Or maybe the two issues converge. The Climate Believers can peddle less use of fossil fuels because they think we are about to bake (I think that´s exaggerated and it´s linked to watermelon politics). And those of us who think we may be getting into a squeeze can suggest rational measures to manage what we have. This means trying to develop an acceptable nuclear power technology, and helping other nations build up their hydropower resources. Things like that.

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 19, 2014 4:02 am

Fernando Leanme
You present a foolish and pointless question when you write

Autoguy, I didn´t make any claims in the 1970´s (In those days I was a recently graduated engineer). The problem I see is that people who don´t know ask us to peek. ANd those of us who do know what to do to get the oil out don´t know where to peek anymore. Or do you REALLY think it´s an endless resource?

Nothing can be an “endless resource” because the universe will end eventually, and before that the Earth will be consumed by the expanding Sun becoming a Red Giant. But so what?
For all practical purposes every resource can be considered to be infinite.
I yet again explain this below for any newcomers who do not know.
The fallacy of overpopulation derives from the disproved Malthusian idea which wrongly assumes that humans are constrained like bacteria in a Petri dish: i.e. population expands until available resources are consumed when population collapses. The assumption is wrong because humans do not suffer such constraint: humans find and/or create new and alternative resources when existing resources become scarce.
The obvious example is food.
In the 1970s the Club of Rome predicted that human population would have collapsed from starvation by now. But human population has continued to rise and there are fewer starving people now than in the 1970s; n.b. there are less starving people in total and not merely fewer in in percentage.
Now, the most common Malthusian assertion is ‘peak oil’. But humans need energy supply and oil is only one source of energy supply. Adoption of natural gas displaces some requirement for oil, fracking increases available oil supply at acceptable cost; etc..
In the real world, for all practical purposes there are no “physical” limits to natural resources so every natural resource can be considered to be infinite; i.e. the human ‘Petri dish’ can be considered as being unbounded. This a matter of basic economics which I explain as follows.
Humans do not run out of anything although they can suffer local and/or temporary shortages of anything. The usage of a resource may “peak” then decline, but the usage does not peak because of exhaustion of the resource (e.g. flint, antler bone and bronze each “peaked” long ago but still exist in large amounts).
A resource is cheap (in time, money and effort) to obtain when it is in abundant supply. But “low-hanging fruit are picked first”, so the cost of obtaining the resource increases with time. Nobody bothers to seek an alternative to a resource when it is cheap.
But the cost of obtaining an adequate supply of a resource increases with time and, eventually, it becomes worthwhile to look for
(a) alternative sources of the resource
(b) alternatives to the resource.
And alternatives to the resource often prove to have advantages.
For example, both (a) and (b) apply in the case of crude oil.
Many alternative sources have been found. These include opening of new oil fields by use of new technologies (e.g. to obtain oil from beneath sea bed) and synthesising crude oil from other substances (e.g. tar sands, natural gas and coal). Indeed, since 1994 it has been possible to provide synthetic crude oil from coal at competitive cost with natural crude oil and this constrains the maximum true cost of crude.
Alternatives to oil as a transport fuel are possible. Oil was the transport fuel of military submarines for decades but uranium is now their fuel of choice.
There is sufficient coal to provide synthetic crude oil for at least the next 300 years. Hay to feed horses was the major transport fuel 300 years ago and ‘peak hay’ was feared in the nineteenth century, but availability of hay is not a significant consideration for transportation today. Nobody can know what – if any – demand for crude oil will exist 300 years in the future.
Indeed, coal also demonstrates an ‘expanding Petri dish’.
Spoil heaps from old coal mines contain much coal that could not be usefully extracted from the spoil when the mines were operational. Now, modern technology enables the extraction from the spoil at a cost which is economic now and would have been economic if it had been available when the spoil was dumped.
These principles not only enable growing human population: they also increase human well-being.
The ingenuity which increases availability of resources also provides additional usefulness to the resources. For example, abundant energy supply and technologies to use it have freed people from the constraints of ‘renewable’ energy and the need for the power of muscles provided by slaves and animals. Malthusians are blind to the obvious truth that human ingenuity has freed humans from the need for slaves to operate treadmills, the oars of galleys, etc..
And these benefits also act to prevent overpopulation because population growth declines with affluence.
There are several reasons for this. Of most importance is that poor people need large families as ‘insurance’ to care for them at times of illness and old age. Affluent people can pay for that ‘insurance’ so do not need the costs of large families.
The result is that the indigenous populations of rich countries decline. But rich countries need to sustain population growth for economic growth so they need to import – and are importing – people from poor countries. Increased affluence in poor countries can be expected to reduce their population growth with resulting lack of people for import by rich countries.
Hence, the real foreseeable problem is population decrease; n.b. not population increase.
All projections and predictions indicate that human population will peak around the middle of this century and decline after that. So, we are confronted by the probability of ‘peak population’ resulting from growth of affluence around the world.
The Malthusian idea is wrong because it ignores basic economics and applies a wrong model; human population is NOT constrained by resources like the population of bacteria in a Petri dish. There is no existing or probable problem of overpopulation of the world by humans.

David Ball
Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 19, 2014 7:16 am

Hmmmm. Thank you for the non-answer. Typical.

David Ball
Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 19, 2014 7:19 am

My previous post is directed to Fernando Leanme. 50 years is the perfect response as no one here will be able to verify. You are going to have to do better. I remain unconvinced.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 19, 2014 3:17 pm

@Fernando Leanme
see if you can trade one thousand tons of granite for one thousand tons of crude oil

Depends on the market. One thousand tons of granite contains about 30 kg fissionable material (mainly Thorium and Uranium). If used efficiently, it can produce as much energy as fifty thousand tons of coal, which costs some 4 million dollars. On the other hand, a thousand tons of crude oil costs substantially less than a million dollars on the current market and produces about 4% of the energy, if burnt.
It all depends on technology and we are talking about a world fifty years into the future. What is more, technology to utilize the full potential of fissionable materials safely was all but ready fifty years ago, it was only dropped for political reasons. There is no such thing as energy shortage and never will be.

Dave Peters
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 19, 2014 5:38 am

Fernando — I am a full blown warmist. Have been since about 1979. But, like many on the American Right, the Green agenda just about as fully creeps me out. My view has been, since Three Mile, that were the Left accepting (accommodative), a shift to nuclear could secure a climatic insurance down payment at very low cost, either in dollars or compulsory restrictions–on the electric side. For mobility, we could well afford the expediency of a wait and see political deferral, primarily because the carbon flows are self-limited, as you point out. Highly reduced hydrocarbons could supply heating requirements for the built environment (here in the US), with maximum utility per combusted carbon for a couple decades.
The technical merits concerning nuclear strike me as overwhelming. The merits, interpreting the physics and thermal record, seem equally overwhelming, at least as concerns handing posterity a world with committed three, four or five Fahrenheit degree transients. Far less so, in our capacity to correctly anticipate, mush less weigh, consequences during the next few decades, be they favorable or deleterious. (I mean here, that we are largely blind, out to 2050, as to what a 5 F. warming world really entail, not that it would manifest by then.)
Politically, the conventional science (the Standard Portrayal) proclaims a three-fold uncertainty, which has proven durable across three and a half decades. The opposition to the Green remedy, is compelled to entrench upon tenuous ground, asserting they are CERTAIN, that sensitivity to exhaust is minimal, and that feedbacks are practically non-existent. (This on a planet that glaciates.) Further, the strident disdain for the medicine gets (unwittingly?) transferred into a misplaced intensification of this entrenchment. Thus, with all these horrific, known non-linear dynamics, the minimalists must assert an unwieldy and to me baseless certitude. NOT TO WORRY! No Republican can even admit there are climatic unknowns.
There are two profoundly dissatisfying aspects to this alignment. Tactically, all of the intellectual effort expended upon the climatic interpretive barricades, foreclose the option of a condominium entailing low cost near term insurance. To the young, this posture, with its inherent passivity, appears heartless and uncaring towards posterity. To the young, the posture’s inherent requirement for certitude, where there is in fact vast and persistent uncertainty, can also often appear fundamentally unscientific. Second, it may prove brittle against specific future excursions. Inundation of the Ninth Ward, or seawater in Manhattan’s subways may not have topped the threshold, but take a look at California’s current drought. That spot of warm water in the NE Pacific appears as menacing as ever. If it is indeed redirecting the Pacific’s moisture, we will see in the coming weeks, that the rains are again gone missing. The wolf is very much at the door, right now, for California’s tens of millions.

September 18, 2014 6:16 am

Try not to laugh too loudly during the presentation.
I know… that’s asking a lot.

September 18, 2014 6:20 am

Enjoy Britain, Anthony. Say hello for me to Tallbloke, Andrew Montford, Josh, Christopher Monckton and the WUWT cast and crew around those parts.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
September 18, 2014 6:55 am


Harry Passfield
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
September 18, 2014 12:48 pm

Bob: If that lot are going to be in the audience I do hope we get some kind of video out of it. I would go viral!

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
September 18, 2014 5:41 pm

Didn’t know that AW was talking to TallBloke as he still describes his blog site as “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”.

Bloke down the pub
September 18, 2014 6:26 am

Look forward to seeing you at the Cook bash.

September 18, 2014 6:38 am

Thanks Anthony! Your tenacious battle for the truth is a model for all. Reality for many of the world’s truly poor will be significantly improved if we can divert the trillions of dollars from the CAGW fraud to clean water, food, medicine and refrigeration- while simultaneously reducing the cost of food and energy.
Safe voyage and the best to your family.

September 18, 2014 6:51 am

Just thought that I would put this here to brighten everyone’s day.
It WILL bring a smile to your face.

Steve R
Reply to  cargosquid
September 18, 2014 8:06 pm

I have a twitter question. When I go to follow Dr Mann, it doesn’t say I’ve been blocked, but it still won’t let me follow? Is following the good Doctor by invitation only?

Gary Pearse
September 18, 2014 6:53 am

A ‘surprise’ late spring frost in Oz damaged broad areas of crops. Today, Antarctic ice reached a new high of near 16.5Msqkm. I think someone should tell Cook and friends that Oz may be the first to show serious global cooling. Any Ozzie farmers reading this, take note, you won’t hear it from your met office of dept of ag.

September 18, 2014 6:55 am

Looking at the Sea Ice Reference Page, and specifically the NRL products, it looks like there’s a pretty substantial storm blowing pretty close to the North Pole. I’d guess that since mean temperature above 80 degrees north is well below 271 K, we’re not going to see a repeat of 2012’s late melt season storm… but I wonder what effect a potential large heat extraction will have on the onset of Arctic freeze-over?

Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 18, 2014 11:21 am

A bit tangential – this website allows you to click on a bunch of sites just inside the Arctic Circle and see a recent weather update:

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 18, 2014 12:00 pm

Inspecting the NANSEN and JAXA products on WUWT Arctic Sea Ice page, it looks like today, September 18, 2014, will be the day of minima. Almost identical or slightly above 2013.
All in all, the Arctic ice sheet is recovering. With the solar minimum coming and the PDO and AMO in or near entering negative phases, the ice sheet is likely to dramatically accelerate the build-up of multi-year ice in the next 5-6 years.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 2:04 pm

The Arctic is warming at the rate of around 1°C every 20 years and the sea ice is declining by 300km³ per year on average. With global warming accelerating in recent years and global CO₂ emissions continuing unabated, any talk of Arctic ice ‘recovering’ is sheer fantasy.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 2:27 pm

icarus62 writes, “With global warming accelerating in recent years…”.
Your statement is clearly and demonstrably false. Either you are (1) ignorant of “the Pause”, or (2) you are aware, but like foisting lies on the uninformed. I suspect (2) is more likely explanation.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 2:46 pm

@icarus62 You haven’t looked at the sea ice page have you. Your “averages”, are taken from oscillating values and thus meaningless. What is the source of your temperature data? A handful of thermometers averaged over the entire arctic region using pairwise homogenization? There is no proven mechanism controlling the arctic ice. “CO2 driven climate via positive feedbacks” is a fantastical hypotheses that as of now still lacks *any* physical evidence. On the other hand, the PDO, the AMO, soot, icebreaker activity, storms, clouds, and the sun aren’t fantastical at all.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 3:56 pm

It’s important to take a step back and look at the big picture:
1: The anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which are the primary cause of today’s rapid global warming aren’t going to stop any time soon – in fact they’re going faster than ever;
2: The planet still has to warm up considerably more before it can once again radiate enough to balance incoming solar radiation even at today’s level of greenhouse gases;
3: Climate impacts have only partially responded to today’s level of global warming, let alone future warming we’re already committed to from today’s level of emissions, and future warming we’re committed to from future emissions;
4: Long term climate feedbacks are waiting in the wings to amplify our warming even more – the fact that we don’t know for sure when they will all kick in, is not a good reason to be complacent. It’s more a reason to be very concerned and very cautious. What we really want to avoid is getting to the point where the feedbacks are self-sustaining and continue to warm the planet without needing any further input from us, until they’re exhausted – that would lead to a very different planet from the one we’re familiar with. At least one study (MacDougall 2012) found that the self-sustaining permafrost carbon feedback was *already* inevitable by 2013.
The bottom line is that there is a lot of lag in the system, and very basic physics dictates that we’re going to see a lot more impacts in coming years, decades and centuries. What we’re seeing now, with the accelerating disappearance of Arctic sea ice as one example, is just the beginning.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 4:06 pm

@icarus62 September 18, 2014 at 3:56 pm
#1. fantasy.
#2. Sure, if #1 were true.
#3. fantasy.
#4. fantasy.
Do you have a link to any study not based on a computer model that backs up anything you are saying?

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 4:09 pm

It’s just the basic physics of how the planet’s energy balance works. You can’t have an argument with the laws of physics and expect to win, you know.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 5:26 pm

@icarus62 says “It’s just the basic physics of how the planet’s energy balance works. You can’t have an argument with the laws of physics and expect to win, you know.”
I’m beginning to suspect you are are troll.
Clearly no one on this site denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, in order for your AGW theory to work, you require an additional theoretical positive feedback in addition to the “single law of physics” you claim to understand so much about. The earth has an active hydrosphere, a biosphere, and a sun that follow many laws of physics, but you choose to ignore all those laws in favor of a mythical positive feedback based on no physics at all.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 6:13 pm

There is no use arguing with someone who continues to makes demonstrably false statements such as “accelerating global warming,” when the evidence for their inspection is in front of them. Even the “mainstream” warmists like Trenberth have openly admitted the earth has stopped getting warmer since at least 2001.
No, you can only conclude icarus62 is a troll who will believe and say what he wants regardless of data to the contrary.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 6:22 pm

icarus62, “1: The anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which are the primary cause of today’s rapid global warming…
There’s zero evidence (2MB pdf) that’s true.
Given your first statement is scientifically indefensible, your deductions are without foundation.
If you want to avoid the 2 MB download, the short of it is that your #1 AGW claim rests entirely on the reliability of climate model air temperature projections. Their 100-year CI is about (+/-)15 C. They have no predictive value at all.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2014 10:00 pm


What we’re seeing now, with the accelerating disappearance of Arctic sea ice as one example, is just the beginning.

But it’s disappearance is not accelerating.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 19, 2014 4:41 am

Pat Frank: The PDF you cited is obviously nonsense. Global temperature does not randomly change by ± 15C in the space of a few decades. Without the necessary tying of hypothesis to physical reality, the PDF is nothing but mathturbation. See the literature for more realistic values for natural unforced variability. Hansen’s 1981 paper would be a good place to start (Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Hansen et al 1981).

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 19, 2014 5:00 am

You suggest that Pat Frank read

Hansen’s 1981 paper would be a good place to start (Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Hansen et al 1981).

I beg to differ because if Pat Frank is to enjoy classic science fiction then I suggest starting with the ‘Invisible Man’ by H. G. Wells that was first published in 1897.
Hansen’s 1981 paper contains more laughs but is less thought-provoking than Well’s ‘Invisible Man’. They each utilise physically impossible effects to generate a frightening but impossible fantasy.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 19, 2014 5:44 am

Hansen has had his predictions of the course of global warming proven quantitatively correct by observations for well over 30 years now, and predictions from other scientists go much further back still (Revelle, Callendar etc.). Pat Frank has already been comprehensively proven wrong by scientists.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 10:51 am

Name one. West side Highway? See any submarines on it yet?

September 18, 2014 7:00 am

Any truth to the oft repeated alarmist explanation that Antarctic sea ice extent is due to fresh meltwater due to a warm West peninsula due to windier winds?

Reply to  Tom Moran
September 18, 2014 7:03 am

And then by my simple mind shouldn’t/wouldn’t freshwater river discharge in the Arctic be making more ice?

Reply to  Tom Moran
September 18, 2014 7:20 am

Or the lack of freshwater river discharge into the Arctic due to diversion to agriculture in Asia for the last 150 years. In climate science you CAN have it both ways.

Reply to  Tom Moran
September 18, 2014 7:46 am

No rivers of any importance anywhere in Antarctica, not enough water because of the cold. The longest river in Antarctica is Onyx River in the Dry Valleys, it is 30 kilometers long and doesn’t even reach the sea. It ends up in the eternally frozen hypersaline Lake Wanda.

Reply to  Tom Moran
September 18, 2014 5:54 pm

FerdinandAkin September 18, 2014 at 7:20 am
“Or the lack of freshwater river discharge into the Arctic due to diversion to agriculture in Asia for the last 150 years. In climate science you CAN have it both ways.”
I am not aware of any decrease in freshwater river discharge into the Arctic. I don’t think that rivers above 60N that run away from population or Ag centers are being diverted much? In fact, NOAA has this factoid about an INCREASE in Asian river discharge into the Arctic.
” The Arctic Ocean receives a large amount of fresh water from river runoff relative to its area, compared to other oceans. There are five major rivers that flow into the Arctic, the Mackenzie and Yukon in North America, and the three largest in Asia, the Ob, Yenisey and Lena Rivers. The Ob and Yenisey Rivers show an increase since the 1980s. Discharge from the six largest Asian rivers increased by 7% from 1936 to 1999. [Peterson, et. al., 2002, Science].
I do not know what your quote ” in climate science you can have it both ways” means? Does that mean that the increased freshwater at the bottom of the world has physical characteristics that are different from freshwater at the top of the world? Is it the whole toilet flushing spin thing that makes it different?

Reply to  Tom Moran
September 18, 2014 7:11 am

1) It’s winter down there now. Temp are -60° and below. Nothing is melting right now.
2) If melting land ice is causing the record sea ice, then how come they same isn’t happening in the Arctic? We are always hearing about how Greenland & Alaska Glaciers are melting aren’t we? So shouldn’t there be record sea ice around them and the Arctic as a whole?
But I guess to the Fraudsters Physics work differently depending on which Hemisphere you are in, remember the Fraudsters are the same people who think Heat from Global Warming can sink below cold and “hide” in the deep ocean
3) From 2000 – 2007 Antarctica was losing sea ice, albeit less than the Arctic. This prompted the 2007 IPCC report to predict that Antarctic sea ice would continue to decline and maybe soon accelerate to match the Arctic.
So if Global Warming / Melting Freshwater is causing increase in sea ice now, what caused the decrease in 2000 – 2007? And why were scientist predicting the Antarctic would continue to decline back then?

Reply to  Tom Moran
September 18, 2014 7:41 am

What “windier winds”?

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 6:29 pm

Agreed. Here are some attempts to blame windier winds :
Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING: Big freeze breaks records – but scientists claim the rise is caused by global warming
Images suggest there is 7.7 million square miles of sea around continent
This is double size of the Antarctic and three times the size of Australia
Fast westerly winds, which go around Antarctica, are now moving south
This is linked to an increase in greenhouse gases and increase in sea ice
Separate study found region’s glaciers are melting faster than ever before
PUBLISHED: 10:16 EST, 15 September 2014 | UPDATED: 10:16 EST, 15 September 2014

Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 10:30 pm

Or, Tom Moran, it could be this, which was not widely reported:
Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources, June 2014.
That West Antarctic melting couldn’t be caused by volcanoes could it?
Giant Undersea Volcanoes Found Off Antarctica. These aren’t the volcanoes under the western edge of the shelf, but they are on the western side.
Subglacial volcanoes
While we’re at it:
Volcanoes exploding under water at North Pole

Reply to  Tom Moran
September 18, 2014 9:51 am

What timing you have!
There is an article over at Government Executive Magazine on this very subject.
Antarctic Sea Ice Hits a Record Max, and That’s Not Good

Reply to  FerdinandAkin
September 18, 2014 10:52 am

Yes there is record extent but the yearly increases are tiny. Please don’t tell the Planet Savers though, such fun to watch them explaining it.

Reply to  FerdinandAkin
September 18, 2014 1:05 pm

I have read the article provided in the link above “Antarctic Sea Ice Hits a Record Max, and That’s Not Good” and the phrases “We suspect” and “The melting of ice on the Antarctic mainland may” give it away as hyperbole.
Having traveled extensively in the arctic and being familiar with the literature on sea ice at both poles I can assure readers that the percentage of glacial ice in sea ice is a very tiny fraction of 1%. Their suggestion that calving glaciers (i.e. ice bergs) are measurably contributing to global sea coverage is just plain wrong.

Reply to  FerdinandAkin
September 19, 2014 4:14 am

The article you reference and the sources that author used sites three reasons why they believe Antarctic sea ice is increasing. 1) the Peninsula region warming in the winter by 5.8 degrees over the last 50 years 2) calving glaciers creating sea going icebergs and, 3) more wind blowing more southerly.
1)Assume the warming in winter is true, would the new warm be warm enough to melt ice? Unlikely. Moreover, if it is the greenhouse effect, why is it warming the floor but not the roof as lower tropospheric temps are declining there over decadal timescales.
2)yesterday, sea ice extent there increased by 27,000 km2, roughly the size of Israel. Are there icebergs the size of Israel calving daily?
3) Antarctica is the windiest place on Earth, how has this changed in the last 300 years?

September 18, 2014 7:03 am

I will also be attending the talks.
I have sent an email via the contact form with details of who I am and how to contact me and am posting here to make you aware of that email [as I’m sure many get lost in the torrent]. I live in Bath, near Bristol, and will be at Bristol during your trip. I would be very interested in helping you in any way I can during your stay [or at the least buying you a drink].
Whilst I will see you at the talks, I would be enormously honored if I could meet you outside of the talks also.
Do get in touch.
Kindest regards,

Reply to  Matt@Bristol
September 18, 2014 11:14 am

Matt: some of us are meeting at the Channings Hotel at 5pm which is 5 mins away from the Vic Rooms, to fortify us for the evening ahead, do feel free to join us.

September 18, 2014 7:12 am

I wonder if Mann has a rider (like pop-stars and actors) when he’s on these speaking gigs – maybe he demands green M&M’s or diffuse lighting to reduce reflections – that sort of thing.

Reply to  jaffa
September 18, 2014 7:40 am

Absolutely no direct overhead lighting.

Owen in GA
Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 18, 2014 7:45 am

But that is for the audience’s comfort…I know, bald jokes are in bad taste….

Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 18, 2014 8:00 am

Dr. Mann is in bad taste.

Reply to  jaffa
September 19, 2014 8:34 am

Mr Mann’s rider probably stipulates, ‘warm drinks only and they should get warmer as the night progresses.’

September 18, 2014 7:36 am

You’ll love this Anthony. So I guess if a movie about “Climate Change” doesn’t get the results the alarmist want, let’s get nearly a million dollars of taxpayer money & do a MUSICAL! That will surely get the message out. NOT!

Reply to  Bobby Davis
September 18, 2014 8:24 pm

The Great Immensity…”
Even the title promises that the work will be an abomination.
“…focuses on a woman named Phyllis…”
Phyllis Upwith Propaganda, no doubt.
Didactic theatre? Spare us. Didactic works seldom have anything much to say besides “ME TOO!” Predictably, a total waste of money to feed the narcissism of a few dozen gullible artistes.

September 18, 2014 7:40 am
Walter Allensworth
Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 12:16 pm

Sunshinehours1 – so the true believers are saying that global warming is causing record sea ice down south. They are quoting fresh-water run-off increasing the freezing temperature of salt water (by making it more fresh). I would LOVE to see some systematic refutation, with references, of their reasons why global warming is causing Antarctica sea-ice records.

Reply to  Walter Allensworth
September 18, 2014 1:58 pm

How far out from the shore does the ice extend? What is the trend in salinity at THAT distance? What happens close to shore is irrelevant. You can’t “add ice extent” close to shore. This is all happening hundreds of miles or more from shore. What is the salinity trend there?

Reply to  Walter Allensworth
September 18, 2014 10:21 pm

MattN, the ice extends over 1500 km from shore i many locations.

Reply to  Walter Allensworth
September 19, 2014 6:50 am

I agree. Additionally, up North, what impact is 2,310 cubic kilometers of freshwater river discharge having on Arctic Sea ice extent? What about all that glacial melt from Greenland?
2,310 cubic kilometers per year of freshwater flows into the Arctic Ocean just from the referenced rivers above

September 18, 2014 7:49 am

This is kind of funny: comedian Michael Loftus of “The Flipside” (a cable comedy show), did a bit about global warming, which now has a youtube version
“Michael Lotus on the lies behind the global warming scare industry” in which my blog gets a mention!
“polarbearscience dot com – it’s a real website and it’s owned and run by
polar bears”
That was the response to the name of my site getting a laugh – but they remembered it, as evidenced by the huge surge in views I’m getting.
Have a look:
Susan Crockford, PolarBearScience

Reply to  polarbearscience
September 18, 2014 8:03 am

Admit it… there’s some dark corner of your mind that has considered organizing ‘Meet the Polar Bears’ adventures for concerned environmentalists. So they can get a first-hand look at how cute and cuddly they are.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 18, 2014 8:08 am

I believe “concerned environmentalists” are considered a delicacy by Polar Bears.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 18, 2014 8:37 am

Then let us take down the signs at Yellowstone that read Don’t Feed the Bears.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  LeeHarvey
September 18, 2014 3:46 pm

Haven’t yet seen a polar bear at Yellowstone. But if the Laurentide Ice Sheet returns, that may change.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 19, 2014 5:38 am

Then the population of grolars will really accelerate! And it will be blamed on global warming (just like now).

Reply to  polarbearscience
September 18, 2014 2:17 pm

Susan…congrats!!! I love your site, tho don’t visit as often as I should 🙂
As we say in Maine…Good on ya.

Reply to  polarbearscience
September 18, 2014 8:38 pm

Is it really hard for you to type, Susan?
Seriously, congratulation on the surge; I hope a lot of it sticks around.

September 18, 2014 8:02 am

““polarbearscience dot com – it’s a real website and it’s owned and run by
polar bears””
Can Polar Bears lobbying Congress be far behind?
Otherwise, more traffic to your site is a good thing. Congrats.

Reply to  JohnWho
September 18, 2014 5:18 pm

I saw that video and that line causes coffee to spray on keyboards, just sayin

September 18, 2014 8:17 am

Hi Anthony,
Enjoy your stay in the UK, whatever size country that is come Friday. I’ve just thought, if the Scots do vote for independence does that mean the UK government can claim they have substantially reduced their CO2 emissions?

M Courtney
Reply to  DavidS
September 18, 2014 12:29 pm

And a strong move away from fossil fuel production too…

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
September 18, 2014 8:33 am

Still no article on the enormous Antarctic record /upswing???

Kelvin Vaughan
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
September 18, 2014 1:30 pm

It’s probably due to a big run off of fresh water due to the ice melting at the Antarctic’s coldest time of the year.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Kelvin Vaughan
September 18, 2014 2:30 pm

nice /sarc. +1

Reply to  Kelvin Vaughan
September 18, 2014 4:59 pm

Lol +2

Non Nomen
September 18, 2014 8:36 am

Please don’t forget to distribute membership application forms for the OAS. Mann and his men will, hopefully, boil with rage, thus contributing to at least some local anthropogenic warming…

September 18, 2014 8:38 am

I am starting a new podcast about effective debate. Who would you suggest I have on the show to debate climate change from your perspective?

Reply to  Bentley Davis
September 18, 2014 6:48 pm

Dr Easterbrook is a good start and if it is effective debating you can’t beat Lord Monckton

Reply to  TRM
September 18, 2014 7:43 pm

Do you know anyone that can give me a personal introduction?

September 18, 2014 8:43 am
NZ Willy
Reply to  sunshinehours1
September 18, 2014 11:39 am

Do a daily graph sometime to see some daily opposing symmetry.

September 18, 2014 8:44 am

Hi Anthony,
Have a good trip to Bristol – its a great city. My hometown, although I live in darkest Hampshire now. Hope you enjoy the visit, wish I could be there. Look forward to your reporting on it.
Best wishes,

September 18, 2014 8:49 am

Every morning when I get up I hear the local radio say “and the Lake Michigan temperature is 67F” but when I walk the shoreline or go fishing out in the lake its like 10 to 15F degrees colder (fishfinder reports accurate surface temperature). The evening TV local weather reports about the same temperatures. And when they report it, it never changes, it’s always steadily rising to September then steadily falling into fall, it never changes more than 1 degree in any given day, when I know the lake surface temperatures can vary wildly. It’s like they are reporting some sort of average temperature as the current temperature. I finally realized they aren’t really reporting the actual temperatures, they are just reporting the historical temperatures like they are actual temperatures. I guess I can understand why they don’t want to bother with figuring out the lake temperature every day, but it is annoying like they report it as fact when it is not. Their little scam sort of got exposed this year with cold lake temperatures but no one seems to have noticed, the water temperature reports are still on auto pilot.

Reply to  Scott
September 18, 2014 8:42 pm

They may be reporting lake temperatures at some depth. Those don’t change much from day to day.

September 18, 2014 8:55 am

“I’ll be attending both the Cook and the Mann lecture at University of Bristol . . .”
Wow, I hope you’re taking some medication with you in case of an upset stomach. That has got to be pretty difficult to sit through.

September 18, 2014 8:56 am

‘Shipshape and Bristol Fashion’ is better than ‘Gangnam Style’.

Leon Brozyna
September 18, 2014 9:12 am

The faux news, whether it’s climate change or some ‘scandal’, is easily identified when the self-righteous pontificating news reader talks about the social media being abuzz with … blah, blah, blah …
Here’s the social media from the last century …

johann wundersamer
September 18, 2014 9:21 am

I think rgbatduke has a good point with
rgbatduke on September 3,
2014 at 10:23 am
I have a couple of problems
with this. Forced harmonic
oscillators have several
essential components: A
restoring force
(approximately linear, at
least for small
perturbations). A driving/
forcing force — usually
harmonic, if only because
we have to do nasty
convolutions if it is not. A
damping force to represent
dissipation, (usually
approximately linear in the
velocity). And a mass.
I realize that you are
expressing a metaphor, not
asserting a model, but I’m
not sure that a metaphor
justifies extended
conclusions as if it were a
model. In particular, I can
see nothing in a climate
system that performs the
same role as a mass (or
inductance, if you prefer
electric circuit oscillators).
Yes, there is an internal
storage or buffering of
energy in e.g. the deep
oceans, but that energy has
no momentum equivalent
and cannot carry the
system through even a
single undamped, unforced
oscillation if it is perturbed.
I should qualify this
statement, of course. The
weather involves secular
motion of actual mass on
the Earth’s surface —
atmospheric flow,
thermohaline circulation —
that have actual
momentum and which are
forced by a complex mix of
Coriolis pseudoforces and
real variable buoyancy
forces as it is differentially
heated and cooled, and
some of those motions
have natural rotational
periods and a very few —
e.g. the evolution of the
diurnal tidal bulge — could
have something like an
actual restoring force
coupled to a periodic
forcing. However, the
frequency spectrum of the
oscillations of this sort is
highly compact compared
to even the smallest
frequencies relevant to
climate evolution on
geological time scales —
they are simply irrelevant,
or at least, it is very difficult
to see how they could be
On the longer timescales, I
think you have to think of
everything changing very,
very slowly — slowly
enough that the system for
the most part merely tracks
a local “quasi-equilbrium”
dictated by things like the
orbital dynamics, which at
least have a very definite
and computable effect on
insolation as eccentricity
changes. It is much more
difficult — for me, at least
— to understand the
effects of changes in
obliquity and precession,
as they involve the
projection of varying
insolation onto the also
slowly varying
geographical arrangement
of continents and oceans.
This is further complicated
by a secondary but
extremely significant
variation in planetary
albedo with the distributed
fraction of planetary
surface covered with snow
and ice, which is also
effectively projected onto
the slowly varying
geographical arrangement
of continents, sea bottoms,
mountain location and
height, and coupled to
things like thermohaline
circulation in nontrivial
ways, and the fact that the
dynamics themselves are
highly non-Markovian with
a time kernel or “memory”
of previous climate with
timescales that can be very
long indeed — hundreds
of thousands of years in
the case of Antarctic and
Greenland ice pack and
(perhaps) the deep ocean.
The closing of Panama and
subsequent rearrangement
of thermohaline circulation,
if indeed this was the
proximate cause of the
Pleistocene’s gradually
deepening descent into
glaciation, is then very
“odd”. If this “flipped a
(million year long) switch”
as of maybe 1.9-2 mya,
with a gradually increasing
effect up to that point, one
would expect to see some
sort of disjunction in the
global temperature, but in
fact it smoothly continues
the 41 ky cycle that was
already established. Again,
the interesting thing isn’t
the 41 ky cycle — that is
understandable — it is the
continuing gradual
deepening of the cold. The
cycles, on average, keep
getting colder and colder.
the kernel / core of our 4.3 bln y old planet is loosing energie – underfloor heating’s diminishing, cold cycles getting longer and longer.
brg hans

September 18, 2014 9:46 am

Are there any experimental facts confirming that the gravitational time dilution is linear?

Reply to  Alexander Feht
September 18, 2014 12:41 pm

Gravitational time dilation?
What is an experimental “fact?” There is of course experimental data. There are interpretations of data. There are more experiments, observations, validations, and replications of experiments and more data. Alternative explanations can be tested for, and the data from those examined. Null hypotheses can be tested for rejection with proper use of statistical methods. Conclusions can be drawn that best explain observation and data. But then it takes only on observation to discount a previously obtained conclusion.
The only “experimental facts” would be that an experiment was performed on a certain day/time, with a certain set of equipment, by named investigators. That would be experimental fact. But not data.

Reply to  JoelO'Bryan
September 18, 2014 6:47 pm

My general thought is that, if gravitational time dilation changes non-linearly with the increase of a mass, even infinitesimally in “normal conditions” (though, possibly, significantly on a galactic and intergalactic scale), then much simpler explanations could be proposed of the observed galactic rotation, red shift, and many other things that nowadays require introduction of mystical matter, mystical force, creation of the Universe out of nothing, exceeding the velocity of light in vacuum, etc.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  JoelO'Bryan
September 18, 2014 8:33 pm

there has been some suggestions by one group that the fine structure constant is not or has not been “constant.”
If somehow (big big IF) alpha has varied over cosmologic time, then the implications are literally revolutionary for how physicists think of charge, space, and the speed of light. I’m not holding my breath on it though. Could take centuries to resolve if the changes have been tiny.

Reply to  JoelO'Bryan
September 18, 2014 11:40 pm

Joel, thanks for the link. Interesting — though, unfortunately, article says nothing about possible consequences of this change of a constant.
My thinking is more along the lines of the gravitational constant not being strictly constant on an astronomically large scales of mass, distances, and time.

September 18, 2014 9:50 am

Solar influence on Earth’s temperatures becomes a mainstream scientific fact.
QED: Leif Svalgaard keeps his clapper shut.

September 18, 2014 9:51 am

Potsdam Conference on eradicating Jews in gas chambers was also a 97% consensus.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
September 18, 2014 9:02 pm

That doesn’t make any sense. Did you mean Wannsee Conference? The decision was made much earlier at a much higher level; no consensus of the gauleiters was sought at Wannsee. Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich and a handful of others made the “decision,” though there is substantial evidence that Hitler had extermination in mind much earlier, no later than August of 1933.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
September 18, 2014 11:33 pm

Strange that you presume that I don’t know the basics.
However, my statement makes perfect sense, because decisions in today’s climatology are also made on the higher level, the level that distributes money, before any “global warming” or “climate change” conferences and meetings are held.
Also, during the aforementioned conference at Wannsee (which is in Potsdam), a decision was made as to the method of extermination of the Jews, and only one person present (a lawyer) refused to approve gas chambers.

September 18, 2014 9:56 am

Wonder if Anth*ny will stay long enough for Ryder Cup tickets? (9-26,27,28) I assume our chump-in-chief will be there since golf seems his main interest….

September 18, 2014 10:05 am

If, over the next 15 years, the atmospheric CO2 level were to decrease, what would be the explanation? Yeah. I’m talking “pause” in CO2. What if?
Would it be a Montreal-esque proclamation of successful public policy? Or maybe you can think of a more scientific excuse.

Reply to  jpatrick
September 18, 2014 2:36 pm

They could explain it if a series of concatenated LARGE volcanic eruptions took place 15 years in a row, this in turn would cool the planet, kill the world economy, lead to a huge famine, and a series of wars. The resulting cooler ocean water would absorb the CO2. Or something like that. Let me go run my model. I’ll get back to you in 15 years.

Frederick Michael
September 18, 2014 10:11 am

The Antarctic Sea Ice sure is interesting,
(Click on the Antarctic button at the top)
This is so high, I wonder if something’s wrong with the measurement.
However, if it’s real the albedo effects are significant. Remember, the Antarctic sea ice is at a lower latitude than the Arctic ice (and don’t get cute and reply, “yeah over 130 degrees lower.”) Anyone who’s squawking about the reduced albedo from less Arctic sea ice should be silenced by this.

Reply to  Frederick Michael
September 18, 2014 2:39 pm

What I find really interesting is the lack of explanations. I realize some blogs and scientific publications try to claim they got it all figured out. I have serious doubts they really understand what’s happening.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 18, 2014 5:15 pm

Agreed. The “it’s getting dangerously warmer side” is rife with : the warmy warming west Antarctic is causing fresh meltwater to flow into the sea where it freezes and then the windier winds warm the more moisty moist air causing more precipitation to fall creating more sea ice. Sounds fantabulously contrived. I’m wondering why the same warmy warmth in the Arctic isn’t responding in-kind even though we hear that Greenland and glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates and Arctic rivers are discharging more freshwater now than previously.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 19, 2014 3:54 am

Tom, the problem I see is the use of a single answer to what could be a very complex set of factors. The ice loss is more pronounced in West Antarctica, but the ice cover grows more on the other side of the peninsula and elsewhere. There are large differences in the climate from one end of the continent to the other, and this clearly means the winds, currents, water circulation, clouds, and other factors must change from region to region. Given the lack of data and the clumsy nature of climate models I don´t see how they can really understand what´s going on.

September 18, 2014 10:22 am

General Thought / Question
Better Batteries?????
As we all know solar and wind will never be able to replace fossil fuels on a grand scale. The reason is physics; more specifically the Law of Conservation of Energy which states energy can not be created or destroyed. Therefore because there just isn’t the energy density available, there will never be any technological advance to ever make solar or wind more viable over fossil fuels.
Now what about Batteries? We always hear the greens (and others) say as battery technology gets better, electric cars and other things will become more & more viable. But is this wishful thinking also?
Batteries also have a law of physics working against them which in their case it’s the fact that electrons repel each other. This means as you charge a battery, the more you charge it the less efficient the charging gets because you have to overcome more & more repulsive forces between more & more electrons. Also, put too many electrons together and **boom**.
So I am wondering if the battery technology of today is pretty much it and because of the laws of physics batteries may become a little better, but there will never be that big quantum leap in battery technology which we would need to make electric cars as good or better than gasoline ones.
I don’t know the exact numbers but for example say the average batteries in electric cars today can hold 100KWh of power. Sure in the future they may invent a battery that can hold 120KWh or even 150KWh, but can there ever be a 1000KWh or even 10000KWh battery?
Thoughts from some of the experts here??

M Courtney
Reply to  qam1
September 18, 2014 12:35 pm

If batteries can be made to last long enough and to be manufactured cheaply then unpredictable renewable energy sources become viable.
But that has been true for centuries.
So far the most efficient batteries are cellulose materials generated by chlorophyll solar power plants.
But this does prove that batteries can make renewable energy viable.

Reply to  qam1
September 18, 2014 12:49 pm

I am a supercap expert with good working knowledge of batteries. The problem is multidimensional. Even leaving out cost, and focusing only on the automotive application, there are three critical dimensions. 1. Energy density (how many kwh stored per unit weight or volume). That is the number you cite in your question, and relates to how far the car will go. 2. Power density (Kw per unit). That is, how fast can you put electricity in and take it out. That relates to things like acceleration and regenerative braking pulses. 3. Cycle life. How long will it last. Relates to system cost.
Now, we already know how to design lithium ion with about 400kwh/kg. and we can also design it for high power density about equal to supercaps. But not both. You can Google Ragonne plot to get charts with the energy/power density trade offs for all favors of commercial and developmental battery chemistries.
Beware the cycle life stuff that is not on a Ragonne. You put in/out power surges on the energy dense version, it has a very short cycle life. Will heat up,rapidly. Only solution is to make the vehicle mass determined power surge ‘look’ small by making the battery bigger than the car. Use the power dense version, and the car won’t go far. No solutions reconciling all three things are on the horizon.
It may be possible to about double (not more) energy density in some of the lithium chemistries by using nanotechnology to increase effective surface at unknown hit to cycle life. That was behind the failed Envia scandal.
Doubt very much there will ever be a 1000kwh battery in the sense of your question. There are already megawatt hour ‘batteries’ on the grid. They are the size of small houses, weight many tons, are usually sodium/ sulfur molten salt operating continuously at 350C with 15 year lifetimes and about 75% round trip efficient (Chevy Volts RTE is about 90%). They cost about $780/kwh and are made by Japan’s NGK and Italy’s Fiamm. Never going to get scaled down to vehicular use.
Hope this abstract helped answer your question.

more soylent green!
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 2:30 pm

Nevada just gave away the farm to win Tesla’s new battery factory. I don’t believe anybody told the governor the facts about batteries and the laws of physics and chemistry.
What is even more relevant is nobody seems to have told the Nevada governor the facts about electric car sales. Nobody seems to want them except a few who want to make a statement and have enough money to make an impractical purchase.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 2:43 pm

Rud, what about an energy storage device to store wind energy? What if you don’t gave to worry about the weight? Can we find a way to pour electrons into a large bottle?

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 5:07 pm

Thanks – I have an EE degree but am winding down a career as a software engineer. I used to scrounge stray EDNs when I worked in embedded systems, but now I work in file systems, far, far away from hot solder.
I was kinda pleased when my Davis weather station’s supercaps wore out, I ordered several from Digikey and was surprise in the difference in internal resistance, (if you can describe it as that!)
Do you see any hope for supercaps with a higher breakdown voltage? From what I can tell, that would come with a much lower capacity and it may be difficult to evenly increase the dielectric layer.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 9:12 pm

Good answer. I think we’ll have hydrogen fusion before we have significantly higher energy density batteries.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 9:40 pm

The report on the multi-month E-Cat run may be out this month! E-Cat World readers are getting antsy.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 19, 2014 7:53 am

Thank you for your reply, it answered a lot.
But it’s sad, because that means a lot of futuristic technologies we have been waiting for (like Phasers, Jet packs, iRobot/terminator/Data like robots) are impossible unless somebody comes up with a better way to store energy than the “electrons in a bottle” batteries of today

Reply to  qam1
September 18, 2014 1:11 pm

Batteries in EVs are actually battery packs, and regardless of the cell technology, you can always increase the number of cells. There are no 100kwhr battery packs out there. The Tesla Model S has a battery pack consisting of roughly 6800 3.7V laptop batteries : capacity 75kWhr – requires 100 kWhrs to fully charge (loss due to heating of battery) – a 15% loss. Weighs about 900 pounds, not counting the water coolant, pump, radiator,etc. Model S – starts at $77,000 and goes well beyond $100,000. Most of the lesser, cheaper ($30 to $45k) electrics have a range of 100 miles or less and have battery packs with roughly 25 to 35 kWhr. Two main problems with batteries are slow recharge times and cost, and to a lesser extent, weight and volume. Li ion also are finicky and for a long life (19 years or so, deterioration somewhere around 1 to 1 1/2 percent per year) the battery temperature must be maintained within a fairly narrow range. Fully discharge a lithium battery and it’s a goner : new battery please. Elon Musk claims he can reduce battery costs by a third in his gigafactory, which I am guessing means from roughly $300 per kWhr to roughly $200 per kWhr. In the around-town scenario, the Tesla driving range is more than adequate, but
at interstate speeds the range drops dramatically as speed increases. At 80MPH getting more than 200 miles is impossible, regardless of conditions. That’s the irony – at speeds required for extended travel, where you need a good driving range, you get the worst driving range, and where you don’t need the range, around town, you get the best range. I believe that , due to the nature of the battery situation, the first practical electric cars will probably be an electric version of the three-wheeled Elio. They require far less energy per mile than the Tesla, about one quarter as much, which translates into almost 10 miles of range per kWhr. A 30kWhr battery pack would be good for around 250 miles (can’t use all the battery’s capacity in li ion technology) and cost around $6000 if Musk is right, making the vehicle cost somewhere between $11,000 and $13,000. Fuel costs (electricity) would be close to a penny per mile. A 150 mile range version between $9,000 and $11,000. I predict such a car would sell very, very well, since it would be a very desirable second car or commuter car, and would not be required for extended travel.

Reply to  Col Mosby
September 18, 2014 2:16 pm

I thought most of the highway speeds in North America topped out around 60 MPH.

Reply to  Col Mosby
September 18, 2014 3:26 pm

Electric cars applicable to southern states only. Winter heating reduces range dramatically.
[But southern, midwest, eastern, and western driving ranges are limited by A/C requirements 9-11 months of the year. Mountain and far west driving ranges are too far for electrics any season. .mod]

Reply to  Col Mosby
September 18, 2014 3:56 pm

The official limit on Interstates is 65, which means 70 in practice. In the West the official limit can be 75.

Reply to  rogerknights
September 19, 2014 5:40 am

Depends upon the state. In Virginia, it is 70, except in urban areas. When the Feds eliminated the 55, states then determined the “official” max speed.

Reply to  Col Mosby
September 18, 2014 4:58 pm

New Hampshire has some roads with 70 mph limits. Mileage on my Elantra declines pretty severely above 60-70 mph.

Reply to  Col Mosby
September 18, 2014 6:11 pm

Oklahoma has interstates with speed limits up to 75mph (on certain toll roads) and 70 mph on many other roads. But, the cars with the Texas plates always seem to exceed that limit, until the highway patrol catch them!

Reply to  qam1
September 18, 2014 2:03 pm

Never bet against human ingenuity.

Reply to  James Hastings-Trew
September 18, 2014 5:40 pm

And never, ever bet against the established laws of physics and chemistry.

Reply to  qam1
September 18, 2014 4:54 pm

Batteries also have a law of physics working against them which in their case it’s the fact that electrons repel each other. This means as you charge a battery, the more you charge it the less efficient the charging gets because you have to overcome more & more repulsive forces between more & more electrons. Also, put too many electrons together and **boom**.

You’re thinking mainly of capacitors. You can think of them as an air tank, the more air you push in the greater it pushes back (but you’re storing a lot more energy). Once it reaches the tensile strength limits it explodes and creates some mayhem.
As you charge a battery, the voltage (pressure) stays pretty much constant, but the anode and cathode undergo chemical changes to a form that stores more energy. Once all that gets converted, the “gas tank” is full and problems happen if you keep charging. Hydrogen and oxygen gas is often formed, and those should get burned in a “reformer” but at the price of the battery overheating. That causes its own set of problems. Overcharging batteries isn’t a good thing to do and chargers try to sense that happening before anything bad happens.

Reply to  Ric Werme
September 18, 2014 5:52 pm

You are correct, but your bad analogy holds for other reasons.
Google much, and study more electrochemistry.
This stuff has been (sort of) understood since Alessandro Volta and Ben Franklin.

September 18, 2014 10:23 am

Anthony: Here’s a weekly publication from Heartland that should be added to the Skeptical sidebar:

September 18, 2014 10:27 am

Holy crap, Batman!
The Antarctic Ice extent just broke 20,000,000 KM^2, and there are still a few days left of Antarctic Ice expansion remaining… WOW– read ’em and weep, Gore baby:
I can’t believe the MSM isn’t reporting this… Well…. I CAN believe it actially, especially with the NY Climate Summit just a few days away….
Ye ol’ Gore Effect in action… Ya gotta love it so…. The timing is impeccable!

Gunga Din
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 18, 2014 1:04 pm

It’s just because the ozone hole has made it easier for the missing heat to skedaddle before anybody can find it.

James at 48
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 19, 2014 12:34 pm

Well now the Greenstream Media are spinning this. They admit this result but proclaim “but the Arctic continues to melt.” I assume they are referring to the more recent multidecadal trend, not this year’s NH result, which is higher than recent years.

September 18, 2014 10:33 am

Some consider the expression ‘skeptical scientist’ or ‘skeptical science’ as being an oxymoron**. Others, instead, consider either of those expressions as having redundant words.
Looking at the climate science dialog concerning the area focused on the AGW theory and hypotheses we see that if one is an activist pushing research showing alarming AGW then either expression is not infrequently intended as an oxymoron used in a pejorative way against crtics of alarming AGW. To them it is an oxymoron that insults because the implication is that being skeptical of alarming AGW is unscientific therefore any scientist who is skeptical of alarming AGW is an ‘unscientific scientist’ or is advocating ‘unscientific science’; either is an oxymoron.
Now, on the other hand, we see that if one is fundamentally and significantly critical of research showing alarming AGW then the terms ‘skeptical scientist’ or ‘skeptical science’ are viewed as expressions with redundant words. They are viewed as having redundant words because in science there is supposed to be a fundamental skeptical view of our theories and hypotheses. So, the expression reduces then to ‘scientific scientist’ or ‘scientific science’; those are redundancy containing expressions.
I recommend neutralizing the useless rhetoric involved with the ‘skeptical’ terminology by simply changing the focus in the climate science dialog toward having either critical or agreeing views. So, consider using expressions like ‘scientist with criticism on _ _ _ _’ or ‘scientist in agreement with _ _ _ _’. It gets rid of the above mentioned oxymorons and of expressions with redundant words.
NOTE: another different reason to be mindful of use of the skeptical term in climate science discussion is that it is widely associated in the general public with pseudo-sciency paranormal investigations and such; à la ‘The ‘ ‘X’ Files ‘.
** oxymoron {noun} meaning a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
*** redundant {adjective} meaning (of words or data) able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.

Reply to  John Whitman
September 18, 2014 2:48 pm

John, I’m not a scientist, I’m an engineer. However, I consider scientists to be man’s best friend. With very few exceptions they do very well when they are fed data and kept in an air conditioned environment.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 19, 2014 7:52 am

Fernando Leanme on September 18, 2014 at 2:48 pm
– – – – – – – –
Fernando Leanme,
Scientists with dirt under their fingernails and smelling of stale sweat is a pleasant thought.

Reply to  John Whitman
September 18, 2014 4:15 pm

I recommend neutralizing the useless rhetoric involved with the ‘skeptical’ terminology by simply changing the focus in the climate science dialog toward having either critical or agreeing views. So, consider using expressions like ‘scientist with criticism on _ _ _ _’ or ‘scientist in agreement with _ _ _ _’. It gets rid of the above mentioned oxymorons and of expressions with redundant words.
NOTE: another different reason to be mindful of use of the skeptical term in climate science discussion is that it is widely associated in the general public with pseudo-sciency paranormal investigations and such; à la ‘The ‘ ‘X’ Files ‘.

That’s a couple of the reasons I’ve been advocating the use of “contrarian” instead. (The thrid reason being that the alarmists won’t accept applying the term “skeptical” to our side (because its connotations are too positive)–and we need a more neutral term.

Reply to  rogerknights
September 19, 2014 7:59 am

rogerknights on September 18, 2014 at 4:15 pm
– – – – – – – – –
Yeah. The ideas and concepts associated with ‘skeptic’ has a tangled past in the history of ideas.

September 18, 2014 10:34 am

Anthony, I’d like to personally thank you for taking this bullet.
h/t to Anthony. 3 Cheers.

September 18, 2014 10:50 am

I think I have found the earliest use of the phrase “deny the science”. Details to follow soon.

Reply to  Toto
September 18, 2014 10:08 pm

The novel “Notre-Dame de Paris”, written by Victor Hugo in 1831, set in 1482.
The words are spoken by Claude Frollo, a learned man for that time, still in the Dark Ages.
Je nie le médecin (doctor). Je ne crois pas à la médecine (medicine).
Je ne crois pas à l’astrologie
non, je ne nie pas la science
quelle chose tenez-vous vraie et certaine? — L’alchemie
Néant, votre science de l’homme! néant, votre science du ciel!
(book 5, chapter 1)

Mickey Reno
September 18, 2014 11:27 am

I’m having a great time reading all the tweets to Michael Mann and exploits of his manic blocking. It inspired me to write some parody lyrics to a song I call Schadenfreude, sung to the tune of the famous Wayne Newton standard, Danke Shoen.
Schadenfreude, oh doctor, schadenfreude
Thank you for predictions so devoid
of reality, go ahead block me,
it’s total bunk, a pile of junk
we know you now, can’t see how, to stop
Schadenfreude, Oh mister, Schadenfreude
Skeptics all make you so annoyed
I recall the hockey stick et. al.
oh but now the pause sticks in your craw
there’s no more heat, where’s the meat
Schadenfreude, oh Mann, Schadenfreude
tweeting like a teenaged anthropoid
no dissent, for this petty tyrant
ignore us all, make a Bore Hole
slicker than snot, you’ve earned a spot of
Schadenfreude, oh Michael, Schadenfreude
SEE OH Two hypothesis destroyed
science learns from failure
but you burn to tailor
tragic blame into fame,
Nobel Prize, oh how wise but
Schadenfreude, oh Mikey, Schadenfreude
I hope you’ll soon be unemployed
I can see a better world for thee
stop this drek, get your paycheck
from washing cars or shoveling tar
Mann’s the boy
Deserving of schadenfreude

Matthew R Marler
September 18, 2014 12:11 pm

Here is a study that addresses a question I have been asking:
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1575–1589, 2014
© Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Hydrology and
Earth System
Open Access
A general framework for understanding the response of the water
cycle to global warming over land and ocean
M. L. Roderick1,2,3,**, F. Sun2,3, W. H. Lim2,3,*, and G. D. Farquhar2,3
1Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
2Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
3Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Canberra, Australia
*Currently at: Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 152-8552, Japan
**Invited contribution by M. L. Roderick, recipient of the EGU John Dalton Medal 2013.
Correspondence to: M. L. Roderick (
Received: 22 November 2013 – Published in Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: 13 December 2013
Revised: 24 March 2014 – Accepted: 24 March 2014 – Published: 6 May 2014
Abstract. Climate models project increases in globally averaged
atmospheric specific humidity that are close to the
Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) value of around 7%K−1 whilst
projections for mean annual global precipitation (P) and
evaporation (E) are somewhat muted at around 2%K−1.
Such global projections are useful summaries but do not provide
guidance at local (grid box) scales where impacts occur.
To bridge that gap in spatial scale, previous research has
shown that the “wet get wetter and dry get drier” relation,
1(P −E)/P −E, follows CC scaling when the projected
changes are averaged over latitudinal zones. Much of the research
on projected climate impacts has been based on an
implicit assumption that this CC relation also holds at local
(grid box) scales but this has not previously been examined.
In this paper we find that the simple latitudinal average CC
scaling relation does not hold at local (grid box) scales over
either ocean or land. This means that in terms of P −E, the
climate models do not project that the “wet get wetter and dry
get drier” at the local scales that are relevant for agricultural,
ecological and hydrologic impacts. In an attempt to develop a
simple framework for local-scale analysis we found that the
climate model output shows a remarkably close relation to
the long-standing Budyko framework of catchment hydrology.
We subsequently use the Budyko curve and find that the
local-scale changes in P −E projected by climate models
are dominated by changes in P while the changes in net irradiance
at the surface due to greenhouse forcing are small and
only play a minor role in changing the mean annual P −E
in the climate model projections. To further understand the
apparently small changes in net irradiance we also examine
projections of key surface energy balance terms. In terms of
global averages, we find that the climate model projections
are dominated by changes in only three terms of the surface
energy balance: (1) an increase in the incoming long-wave
irradiance, and the respective responses (2) in outgoing longwave
irradiance and (3) in the evaporative flux, with the latter
change being much smaller than the former two terms and
mostly restricted to the oceans. The small fraction of the realised
surface forcing that is partitioned into E explains why
the hydrologic sensitivity (2%K−1) is so much smaller than
CC scaling (7%K−1). Much public and scientific perception
about changes in the water cycle has been based on the notion
that temperature enhances E. That notion is partly true
but has proved an unfortunate starting point because it has
led to misleading conclusions about the impacts of climate
change on the water cycle. A better general understanding of
the potential impacts of climate change on water availability
that are projected by climate models will surely be gained by
starting with the notion that the greater the enhancement of
E, the less the surface temperature increase (and vice versa).
That latter notion is based on the conservation of energy and
is an underlying basis of climate model projections.
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
September 18, 2014 2:53 pm

Matthew, so it looks like it’s going to get more humid and will probably rain more. This means umbrella makers will have more business?

Mac the Knife
September 18, 2014 12:17 pm

Your ‘klimate kleptocrat’ dollars are being well spent America! Cascade Sierra Solutions company received more than $60 million in government grants to ‘upgrade emissions on pre-2007 diesel trucks’, as part of the ‘stimulus program’. This ‘green enterprise’, operating out of the anarchist enclave of Eugene Oregon, went bankrupt in March this year, leaving banks and creditor’s stuck with $19 million in debt!
Ninety Percent of EPA Stimulus Funding for Diesel Reduction Program Misspent
The OIG said the entirety of a $9 million grant given to Cascade Sierra Solutions was wasted after the non-profit failed to accomplish any of the project’s goals. The grant was intended for upgrading diesel trucks made before 2007 with emission control technologies.
“Recipient did not install verified emission control technologies on pre-2007 model year trucks; therefore, trucks did not meet emission requirements,” the OIG said.
The company closed earlier this year, and was over $19 million in debt to banks and creditors. The company had received more than $60 million in grants from the federal government.
The EPA has only recovered $1.8 million from Cascade Sierra Solutions, according to the OIG report.
Here’s a video about their (ironically) named ScRAPS program… run in the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Nice marketing….

September 18, 2014 1:05 pm

This is my very first post, but I thought you all might enjoy a true story about Dr. Michael Mann. A former NOAA/NWS colleague of mine related to me that he made a humorous comment about termites in his Area Forecast Discussion several years ago as part of the midnight shift forecast package. Remember when a study said that termites were responsible for the generation of significant amounts of methane? Herr Dr. Professor Mann read this AFD (or became aware of it from his minions) and actually e-mailed the Meteorologist-In-Charge (who may rival Mann in the Narcissist Sweepstakes) to say that this was uncalled for, not good science, yadda yadda. It was clear that his contact was intended to pressure us forecasters to refrain from casting aspersions on the idea of human-caused global warming. As my former colleague was not exactly loved (none of the people with common sense in that office were), the supervisor took the opportunity for a free bash session on the hapless forecaster. Can’t mention anything that would appear to cast a sidelong glance at what passes for science these days, can we? Like with the former supervisor, one story or event in and of itself doesn’t have much significance with Dr. Mann, and it’s only in hindsight that one can meaningfully interpret a series of these negative actions. Checking the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry Version IV (DSM IV; now up to Version V, if memory serves), those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder believe they are not wrong – it’s everyone ELSE that is wrong. The former supervisor actually said that in an open meeting one day: “I’m right, and you’re all wrong.” And right after that: “If you want to know what’s wrong with this office, just look in the mirror.” I guess the supervisor didn’t like how his comments were laughed at, because the Un-Loved Ones amongst the assembled received disciplinary notices shortly thereafter, which had to be made to disappear from personnel folders by the NWSEO (union) Regional Chair. Another time, the supervisor said to me (and at least one other forecaster) that the supervisor was not responsible for my anger; but that I was responsible for my own anger, and I needed to seek anger management. This inability to accept blame or criticism is integral to the narcissist’s personality disorder, as is the need to strike back. In my opinion, it is this twisted mindset that needs to be investigated in the so-called “Climate Science”, and I daresay meteorology, of today. Perhaps it can be forthrightly said that the NWS has always had its share of “characters,” and even narcissists, but my experience was that academia did not share this affliction and did not operate in such a scurrilous way. My, my, how times have changed. And oh, the NWS stories that could be (and should be) told!

Reply to  4caster
September 18, 2014 2:19 pm

From the Mayo clinic:

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
* Believing that you’re better than others
* Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
* Exaggerating your achievements or talents
* Expecting constant praise and admiration
* Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
* Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
* Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
* Taking advantage of others
* Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
* Being jealous of others
* Believing that others are jealous of you
* Trouble keeping healthy relationships
* Setting unrealistic goals
* Being easily hurt and rejected
* Having a fragile self-esteem
* Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  tarran
September 18, 2014 2:34 pm

Describes Obama exactly.

Reply to  tarran
September 18, 2014 7:00 pm

Applicable to almost every man and woman I know. Like most of the psychological generic diagnoses these days.

Reply to  tarran
September 18, 2014 7:40 pm

Are you describing Obama, Mann, Hansen, Cook, Connolly, Gore … or Nero?

Reply to  tarran
September 18, 2014 8:55 pm

Not that I have any sympathy for the likes of Obama or Mann, but being narcissistic is not necessarily bad. Many of the benefactors of humanity — scientists, inventors, poets, composers, painters — were narcissistic to the extreme.
The problem arises when a person has nothing to show for his or her self-admiration. Richard Wagner was not only narcissistic, he was an accomplished bigot, a swindler who never paid his debts, a Jew-hater (though he probably knew that he was an illegitimate child of a Jewish actor), and a fool of many spectacular dimensions.
Nevertheless, Wagner wrote some exquisitely beautiful music that will be giving people pleasure for centuries to come. By the way, according to the memoirs of Zhabotinsky, one of the founders of Israel, Wagner’s overture to Tannhäuser inspired in him the idea of the independent Jewish state. Go figure.
One thing is incontrovertible: Barack Obama and professor Michael Mann have nothing to show that would justify their narcissism.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  4caster
September 20, 2014 10:39 am

4caster, do you have anything besides hearsay evidence of this interaction?

September 18, 2014 1:35 pm

OMG I wonder if it is going to be like slipping into an alternative universe like what used to happen to Captain Kirk. I guess it depends on what percentage of the audience are Mann/Cook sycophants.
Meanwhile in yet another alternate universe, Al Gore warns Climate Skepticism Will Haunt Republicans in 2016. Does this guy not even get the mid-east is blowing up with potential increasing blowback , jobs still have only partially returned from the last recession, and health care costs remain an issue for all but the very poor or the very rich.
So let me understand the Gore universe; War, Health, and being able to provide food, clothing, and a roof for your family are not the bread and butter issues, it is those gosh darn climate skeptics.

James Abbott
September 18, 2014 1:51 pm

NOAA August stats in:
Record warm land/ocean August 2014
Record warm land/ocean June- August 2014
Both beating 1998.

Reply to  James Abbott
September 18, 2014 2:03 pm

James Abbott
You write saying in total

NOAA August stats in:
Record warm land/ocean August 2014
Record warm land/ocean June- August 2014
Both beating 1998.

If you want to know how how those “Record” values were fabricated then see this.
Note the graph is only for the time since July 2011. Other changes ‘cooled’ earlier times.

Anything is possible
Reply to  richardscourtney
September 18, 2014 5:05 pm

Vast swathes of missing data on the land only record :
which “miraculously” reappears in the land-ocean record
You can’t make this up. Oh, wait, it looks like they did.

Reply to  James Abbott
September 18, 2014 3:02 pm

James, it sure is getting hot isn’t it? I think you can donate all your winter clothing, you won’t be needing it. We also have to prepare for the super hurricanes and the additional 1 mm sea level rise we should expect by the end of the year.

Richard M
Reply to  James Abbott
September 18, 2014 5:22 pm

I believe RSS has it around 13th place in just 35 years. The divergence would make any reasonable person curious.

David A
Reply to  Richard M
September 20, 2014 5:11 pm

Here is what a divergence between the two looks like now, third graph down. (That is the real new record, almost .7 degrees.)
UAH is much closer to RSS now.

Reply to  James Abbott
September 19, 2014 8:17 am

Until and unless Anth*ny et al can ferret out a proper analysis of surface-station data, such presently-doctored data is worse than useless.
Satellite temps are the only reliable measurements — full coverage & no UHIE. If you don’t like that they only go back to 1979, that’s just the reality. Get real.

September 18, 2014 2:02 pm
Reply to  ColdinTN
September 20, 2014 3:27 pm

From what I’ve seen, you speak the absolute truth.

September 18, 2014 2:30 pm

You won’t like Bristol – the people there are open-minded, liberal, welcoming to minoriites, increasingly anti-religion, intelligent (and, therefore, anti-conspiracy theories and other forms of wishful-thinking leading to a denial of rational science), left-leaning, and rational.
Mann and Cook will likely get a warm reception too, which you won’t like either.
Oh well, at least you’ll be able to sit among normal people with normal interests – it should be an eye-opener for you!

Reply to  JMuphy
September 18, 2014 4:50 pm

“increasingly anti-religion, intelligent (and, therefore, anti-conspiracy theories and other forms of wishful-thinking leading to a denial of rational science), ”
An ode to rationality and rationality only;
For more than 200 years now Western atheism tries to create itself a sound epistemology that makes them sorta capable of existing together in a society; trying to find themselves reasons why it is not right to slaughter fellow people at will. As, in the eyes of the mechanistic atheist, humans are lumps of meat, and consciousness a meaningless illusion, why not slaughter excess people? From Kant on some kind of logical-positivist reasoning has to justify it; yet Goedel has proven the necessary incompleteness of any axiomatic system.
One could echo Dawkins and say, we should strive to minimize suffering; well but that is equivalent to arguing for a quick and painless execution. Do the lumps of meat suffer when annihilated by a lightning fast atomic blast? Can meat suffer when blown to atoms in a microsecond? That’s too fast for the nerve impulses of the meat, so nuclear annihilation should be A-OK for atheists.
Definitely a step up above the Guillotine.

Reply to  DirkH
September 19, 2014 12:40 am

For more than 200 years now Western atheism tries to create itself a sound epistemology that makes them sorta capable of existing together in a society; trying to find themselves reasons why it is not right to slaughter fellow people at will.
== == == == == == ==
The answer comes from the prisoner’s dilemma of game theory.
If you are not planning to wipe out everyone in a zero-sum game, then killing people on the basis of some psychopathic impulse, or just for profit or pleasure (assuming you have those kind of motives for killing in your constitution–most people don’t) is probably not in your interest.
Someone will probably return the favor. (That’s why barbarian history is full of family feuds.)
Atheists don’t run around killing people simply because they don’t fear and angry deity with questionable ethics. Atheist don’t need an imaginary parent with a stick looking over their shoulder to make them behave in a civilized fashion.
When a religious person loses faith and becomes an atheist, they typically turn into serial killers, do they?
And yet, the Crusaders butchered and raped their way to Palestine on the papal (papa) promise that they would be forgiven their sins, and rewarded for their efforts.
When the Crusades ground to halt, the Church sold indulgences instead – licenses for bad behavior.
It wasn’t an atheist who said, “Kill them all, and let God sort it out.” Nothing undermines the value of life and limb like religion does.

Reply to  DirkH
September 19, 2014 1:04 am

It seems you like to use the logical fallacy of ‘arguing the general from the particular’ and say

It wasn’t an atheist who said, “Kill them all, and let God sort it out.” Nothing undermines the value of life and limb like religion does.

But I can also use that fallacy so I point out that it was an atheist who insisted tens of thousands of Soviet peasants be forced from their homes and starved to death. Clearly, nothing undermines the value of life and limb like atheism does.
WUWT is not a place to proselytise any religion and that includes atheism.

Reply to  DirkH
September 19, 2014 4:00 am

I don´t believe in supernatural beings. I strive to behave because that´s what my parents and those around me taught me. And I never considered anything “just a lump of meat”. On the other hand, I have been abused by religious people (mainly US protestants) who felt I was an inmoral character because I didn´t fear going to hell. I guess the conclusion is to each his own, and I sure hope we never have a theocratic government in charge…religious people do tend to enjoy burning heretics like me at the stake.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  DirkH
September 20, 2014 10:52 am

As, in the eyes of the mechanistic atheist, humans are lumps of meat, and consciousness a meaningless illusion, why not slaughter excess people?

“Thou shalt not kill”, unless they’re Canaanites “infesting” the so-called “promised land”, then it’s ok to slaughter them by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. How quickly they broke so many of the commandments.
I’m an atheist, and I don’t see humans as lumps of meat to be culled. In fact, I help those less fortunate than myself every day, as part of my job (a job that barely pays the bills). But it is blatantly obvious that believing in magical beings doesn’t prevent one from slaughtering one’s fellow man, in the name of that magical being.

Reply to  JMuphy
September 18, 2014 5:53 pm

Open-minded? intelligent? Anti-conspiracy theories (Koch machine, “well-organized, well-funded d@nial machine))? anti-wishful thinking (renewables are practical or will be soon)?
Surely you jest.
The comment section of the Guardian has left us wide-eyed already.

James Abbott
September 18, 2014 2:40 pm

I wondered how long ti would take before I got a response along the lines “its all made up”.
So is the record Antarctic ice area “made up” ? No doubt you would say no – and that is cherry picking of data to suit a pre-determined position.
The fact is we are seeing record warm ocean surface temperatures and in August a record departure. That is a key driver. All the surface temperature data sets are showing the same trend, even if the details, as would be expected, show variation.
2014 is on course to be a top 5, possibly top 3 year and it shows how the focus on regional weather – cool periods in eastern USA this year for example – are wrongly extrapolated to produce “evidence” of global cooling.

Reply to  James Abbott
September 18, 2014 3:07 pm

Each of us can thank our respective deities it may not be a record hot year. The fact that surface temperature doesn’t seem to be rising is such a relief. This hiatus period or whatever you want to call it may give us time to find a new technology to use solar and wind power for real. Praise the deep ocean for hiding the heat!

David Ball
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 19, 2014 7:28 am

And Fernando reveals his real agenda,….

Reply to  James Abbott
September 18, 2014 3:15 pm

to be fair cool periods in eastern USA are also used to ‘prove’ AGW , as are warm ones , as is more rain less rain , heat of any kind , snow , less snow , more snow , floods , draughts , wind , high wind , lack of wind and rain of frogs .
The days of weather is not climate are long gone now any extreme but not usual weather event is jumped on has ‘proof’ of ‘the cause ‘ because despite all the claims , the bluster and the BS the actual climate has failed to support ‘the cause ‘ in any way near the way the ‘settled science’ claimed it would . So now its time to resort to barn door style predictions with error bars so wide you could fly a 747 through them sideways.
Or just fiddle the figurers so the past becomes a ‘better match’ to the claims and never mind the actual reality . Its religion not science that makes of unquestionable perfection.

Reply to  James Abbott
September 18, 2014 4:03 pm

The “record” August is due to temperature fabrication by Gavin Schmidt. He simply invented temperatures for places where thereis no data , such as the Arctic. This is documented on this blog and others. Then comes a poor gullible fellow like you and repeats the lie. Or maybe you are not so gullible but have a mission to spread propaganda.

Reply to  James Abbott
September 18, 2014 7:23 pm

James Abbott:
Try something for me: go to the GISS mapping site… and put 250km for the smoothing range (instead of the ridiculous 1200km Gavin likes to use) and set the normals period to 1981-2010 (like the WMO recommends) and tell me what temp anomaly shows. it will look something like this
half! half of the anomaly GISS puts in its press releases with their map parameter tweaking

lawrence Cornell
Reply to  James Abbott
September 18, 2014 8:25 pm

James Abbot,
Apples … Datasets of temperature that have been shown to be questionably adjusted.
Oranges … Antarctic ice area that we can “see” “live” with our electronic eyes in the sky.
No, the Antarctic ice area is not “made up”. Please show me a picture or any proof for that matter that shows that the NOAA T datasets are not “made up”.
Mentioning one and not mentioning the other is not “cherry picking”. They are actually very different things and types of things, not comparable and don’t fit the “cherry picking” bumper sticker. Please re-read your talking points manual, “cherry picking” is an overused catchall, if you are going to overuse it overuse it properly. you can surely do better than that.

Reply to  James Abbott
September 19, 2014 1:30 am

Dr. Roy Spencer says

Global average ocean surface wind speeds have been decreasing. In fact, August 2014 had the lowest surface wind speed in about 25 years.

He also says

Importantly, this 4 W/m2 reduction in heat loss is LARGER than the supposed anthropogenic radiative forcing… The net result that the wind speed effect is probably at least 4 times the anthropogenic effect.

Reply to  James Abbott
September 19, 2014 2:19 am

James Abbott
You say to me

I wondered how long ti would take before I got a response along the lines “its all made up”.

I did not say that but – as a matter of fact – the datum you cited IS “made up”; see this.
Please note that ‘Anything is possible’ posted this information (which I link) in support of my refuting your having posted the same falsehood as you have posted in this thread.
Also, see ice cover is a completely different matter which is direct observation so cannot be “made up”.

David A
Reply to  James Abbott
September 20, 2014 8:53 pm

S has become an outliner. This is what a divergence between the two looks like now, third graph down. (That is the real new record, almost .7 degrees.)
UAH is much closer to RSS now as well. If you were to see RSS August 1998 vs. RSS August 2014, you would see 1998 was far warmer. GISS is manipulated.

September 18, 2014 2:54 pm

The Cook and the Mann lecture is likely to full of true believers and has neither can handle a critical question worth a dam so I expect a ‘very controlled’ meeting with the usual ‘evil fossil fuel , conspiracy, worse than we thought ‘ madness. Funny in the type of way the leaves you feeling unclean afterwards.

Reply to  KNR
September 18, 2014 3:54 pm

Can’t figure out why Anthony would attend.
Lewindowsky or whoever will be there too. It would give me the creeps to be in the same room with any one of those but Anthony will see all three!

September 18, 2014 3:03 pm

Al Gore’s microphone fails while quoting Jesus on word ‘hypocrite’

September 18, 2014 3:21 pm

Please make an opportunity to ask what, if anything, would lead them to believe that the idea that CO2 was causing recent global warming was falsified. I’d like to see what their JBS Haldane moment looks like.
Perhaps finding a starting point…like if the linear trend for RSS was statistically significantly negative for 30 years, would that be enough?
Evidently from the climategate emails, Mann said that he figured out some length of time of no rise as important. Maybe ask him if he is gearing up to move the goalposts yet. From memory it seems only a couple of years away now.

September 18, 2014 3:57 pm

18 Sept: Calgary Herald: Amanda Stephenson: ‘Climate change denier’ dismisses label
(Ross McKitrick) “It’s a dumb term, for one thing. In my opinion, a climate change denier would be somebody who thinks we’re still in the middle of an Ice Age and the continent is covered by a glacier,” McKitrick said in an interview with the Herald. “Obviously, nobody would think that. You have to accept that the climate changes.”…
“The issue really is the extent to which you accept that greenhouse gas emissions are causing a major catastrophe,” McKitrick said. “I would just say my reading of the evidence is that so far, it doesn’t appear to be a big issue.”…

Geoff Sherrington
September 18, 2014 4:23 pm

Bon voyage.
Do not judge all Australians by the standards of some you might meet.

September 18, 2014 4:50 pm

@Fernando Leanme at 6:16 am
It is a useful exercise to consider how much CO2 could be put into the atmosphere if we burn all our fossil fuel reserves.
But, consider for a moment that as some point in the geologic history of the earth, the carbon that was used in creating all the oil, coal and gas, had to be in the atmosphere in the form of CO2. Coal, oil and gas are products of life sequestering CO2 below ground. Furthermore, the amounts are not just the reserves, but the inextractable resources, hydrocarbons in place, The biggest carbon sink of all are the carbonates.
<, From a discussion on: "We Must Get Rid of the Carboniferous Warm Period." WUWT Oct. 6, 2013.

How much carbon is accounted for in CO2 in the atmosphere compared to other places: (See Wiki: Carbon Cycle) in gigatons
Atmosphere: 720 GT
Fossil Fuels: 4,130 GT (90% coal and peat)
Terrestrial biosphere: 2,000 GT (living and dead)
Ocean organic: 1,000 GT
Ocean inorganic: 37,400 GT
Lithosphere Kerogens: 15,000,000 GT
Lithosphere Carbonates: more than 60,000,000

Not all of that Carbon had to be in the atmosphere in the history of the early Earth. Archean Black Shales had to be a big sink and reservoir for carbon.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
September 18, 2014 5:59 pm

Ferdinand and Steven, listen to this: Dr. JF Kenney discussing his abiotic oil paper in the Proceedings in the National Academy of Sciences on NPR’s Science Friday. Instead of CO2 in the atmosphere drilling itself through rock miles deep to create oil and gas–I’m assuming you weren’t being facetious–it would seem to me that pressures of the earth on carbonates at the level of the mantle of the earth make more sense. Interesting talk, btw.

Reply to  policycritic
September 18, 2014 7:45 pm

That there are abiotic processes that can make methane and propane. Is not in dispute.
That you can contrive abiotic process to create longer chains of hydrocarbons in small quantities. is also not in dispute.
Neither of these facts alters our knowledge that life, biotic processes, are prolific producers of methane, propane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, isomers, aromatics, alcohols, and acids. The oil and gas we produce are almost entirely biotic, not abiotic.
Forget what we know about the generation of oils from gas chromagraphs and pyrolysis of rock laced with fossil organic carbons. Forget all that.
Look no farther than the shale oil and shale gas we are producing in the fracking revolution. We are now drilling into impermeable shales we once thought of as seals on top of reservoirs to trap conventional oil fields. We drill into these impermeable shales and shatter them with high pressure water and sand in a frac. After doing this we get out — oil and gas.
If oil and gas are generated in the mantle, how can they possibly get into the impermeable rock we work so hard to fracture?

Reply to  policycritic
September 18, 2014 8:49 pm

I wasn’t saying anything about the unlikelihood of impermeable shales containing oil, or how the oil came to be there. (In the interview I recommend above, Kenney talks about how they used their abiotic oil theory oil at the crystalline basement of the Donetz-Dneiper Basin in Eastern Ukraine; the prevailing wisdom being that the basement doesn’t contains oil or gas. They brought it a field many multiple of the reserves of Alaska.)
My point was that CO2 in the atmosphere does not seep into the rock and create oil, as you averred…unless you were joking. If anything, it seems the enormous heat, pressures, and elements of the earth can create oil and gas of their own.

Reply to  policycritic
September 19, 2014 4:11 am

Polucritic, the enormous pressures and high temperatures found way down there make CO2 and diamonds. The abiotic oil theory doesn´t really have a leg to stand on. And this is why we saw the theory become popular in countries which had no oil such as Sweden, where the abiotic oil search was a fiasco.
Let me give you a personal obeservation: Rocks holding hydrocarbons generated from tiny dead creatures and vegetation which fall down and get buried in an anoxic environment can eventually generate oil and gas. What i have seen is that as the source bed gets buried deeper it tends to generate more gas and less liquids. Eventually it´s buried deep enough it only generates gas (methane). If an oil bearing rock is buried too deep and the temperature increases too much the oil is destroyed.
In other words, what I have seen with my own eyes is that high pressure and temperature, if high enough destroy the molecules the abiotic theory claims are somehow being created.

Reply to  policycritic
September 19, 2014 7:16 pm

But Fernando, what about the Dr. Kenney claim in the audio that no biologic molecule can exist beyond the temperature of the Critical Temperature of Salt Water. Do you disagree with that?

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
September 18, 2014 6:08 pm

Stephen, there are a few things we need not assume. First, carbonate rocks ( e.g. Limestones ) were formed by biological atmospheric carbon sequestration. They are at least microfossilferrous. You doubt that, get a microscope and check out the White Cliffs of Dover ( or your local favorite equivalent).
So it is not only fossil fuels. Calcining calcium carbonate to make lime to make cement is roughly a tenth of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions at present. Not from the fossil fuel burned. From the chemical reactions that free biolofically sequestered CO2 from what was a rock.
Amounts to diddle, unless one wants to get into detailed arguements from the other side.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 7:20 pm

What’s your point?
There is an enormous quantity of CO2 locked up in CaCO3 of limestone.
Most limestone is created by the shell building of ocean organisms. Most, not all — there are some inorganic carbonates, but most.
These organisms took CO2, via bicarbonate ions, to form the limestone.
That CO2 had to be in solution in the water and present in the atmosphere.
Life has been sequestering CO2 into rock and kerogen for most of 4 billion years.
Consequently, for most of that 4 billion years, we have had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today.
What I was trying to say was to total carbon existing in fossil fuel reserves is a pittance compared to the amount of carbon that life has fixed into carbonate rock, source rock, and kerogen. And it was all in the biosphere at sometime or other.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 9:44 pm

Again, Stephen, and not be obstreperous, why couldn’t the CO2 have risen from within initially? It seems like an awfully slow process to have 0.04% of the atmosphere do it by entering impenetrable rock over the millennia. The surprise announcement in June 2014 that scientists discovered a vast reservoir of water 3X the size of the oceans in the transition zone between the lower and upper mantle will no doubt change a lot of our perceptions and knowledge. The Russian abiotic people produced oil in a lab with calcium carbonate, solid iron oxide, triple-distilled water, and 50 Kbars of pressure (mirroring the mantle). They made the stuff. Then, they used the knowledge in a commercial venture and succeeded, so who is to say they are wrong. Btw, what are the underwater volcanoes belching out but CO2.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 18, 2014 9:45 pm

Rud, are you the guy who writes at Judith Curry’s occasionally?

September 18, 2014 5:10 pm

icarus62 says at 4:09:
“It’s just the basic physics of how the planet’s energy balance works”
The Earth’s climate is much more dynamic and complex than you are giving it credit for. That’s part of the reason modelers fail so miserably trying to model it. Your basic physics probably hold up in controlled laboratory conditions but there’s more to the story when you consider them in the real world.

Reply to  sinewave
September 19, 2014 7:44 am

How do you explain the fact that climate models have been successfully predicting the course of global warming for several decades now?

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 7:58 am

You ask

How do you explain the fact that climate models have been successfully predicting the course of global warming for several decades now?

There are several known and published reasons for the fact that climate models have been proven unable to predict the course of global warming for several decades.
One of the earliest explanations for the models’ failure was published in the last century
ref. Courtney RS ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’ Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 8:32 am

33 years ago, Dr. James Hansen correctly predicted the modern global warming trend, both qualitatively and quantitatively, before it had even begun.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 12:33 pm

Not even close. Check the 2 sigma deviation.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 8:49 am

I don’t know where you got that cartoon, but Hansen failed to get anything right in his entire career.
I think you need to read this

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 9:01 am

The graph is from Hansen’s 1981 paper –
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
You can see that when global temperature of the subsequent 33 years is plotted against Hansen’s prediction, it matches extremely well.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 9:17 am

You claim

The graph is from Hansen’s 1981 paper –
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
You can see that when global temperature of the subsequent 33 years is plotted against Hansen’s prediction, it matches extremely well.

Assume your assertion is true (your link does not show that although its Figures 6 and 7 have some similarities), then Hansen rescinded that graph in favour of his 1988 forecast(s).
Hansen’s 1988 forecast was 150% wrong
Of course, if Mystic Meg makes enough different forecasts then one of them may be nearly correct. Assume your cartoon was from Hansen in 1981, then it is not as good a forecast as those claimed by Mystic Meg.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 9:37 am

Climate sensitivity was not very well constrained in the 1980s. Hansen’s 1988 paper was based on a fast feedback climate sensitivity of ~1°C/W/m², whereas the graph cited from his 1981 paper was based on a fast feedback climate sensitivity of ~0.75°C/W/m². A comparison of the two papers shows that 0.75°C/W/m² is closer to the real world value, and of course a great deal of research since then has come to the same conclusion.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 9:44 am

Allow me to help
You write

Climate sensitivity was not very well constrained in the 1980s. Hansen’s 1988 paper was based on a fast feedback climate sensitivity of ~1°C/W/m², whereas the graph cited from his 1981 paper was based on a fast feedback climate sensitivity of ~0.75°C/W/m². A comparison of the two papers shows that 0.75°C/W/m² is closer to the real world value, and of course a great deal of research since then has come to the same conclusion.

I translate.
You know Hansen was wrong and you admit Hansen was wrong, but you cannot bring yourself to admit that you were wrong when you claimed Hansen was right when he made his 1981 prediction.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 9:58 am

Clearly Hansen was right in his 1981 paper, since subsequent observations have matched the prediction in the cited graph almost exactly. So, we know that the basic physics of AGW was correctly understood by the early 1980s, and we know that fast feedback climate sensitivity is closer to 0.75°C/W/m² than to 1°C/W/m². We also know, from Hansen’s work and that of others, that climate models have a good track record for making skillful projections of global warming. The IPCC projections have also performed consistently well.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 12:54 pm

False again. Subsequent observations have not matched his model or predictions. As you yourself have admitted.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 11:27 am

LOL – Now that is a whopper! The models were created roughly 20 years ago. Since then they have not been close. Some (not all) correctly hindcast temperatures,. but so far, none have accurately FORECAST temperatures. About 2% have come close (within 2 sigmas) but that is disappearing as well the longer the pause lasts.

September 18, 2014 6:06 pm

Observations for the shark tank. schroeder&category=all&followers=all

September 18, 2014 6:06 pm

18 Sept: Reuters: Valerie Volcovici: Global investors urge leaders to act on carbon pricing ahead of UN meeting
More than 340 institutional investors representing $24 trillion in assets on Thursday called on government leaders attending next week’s United Nations climate summit to set carbon pricing policies that encourage the private sector to invest in cleaner technologies.
Firms signing a joint letter include BlackRock, Calvert Investments, BNP Paribas Investment Partners and Standard Bank.
They want countries to set a price tag on pollution by taxing carbon emission or implementing cap and trade emissions policies to create incentives for investing in cleaner technologies…
“Investors are owners of large segments of the global economy as well as custodians of citizens’ savings around the world. Having such a critical mass of them demand a transition to the low-carbon and green economy is exactly the signal governments need in order to move to ambitious action quickly,” said Achim Steiner, director of the UN Environment Programme…
On the sidelines of the summit, Ban will also host a private sector forum that will help build up support for carbon pricing in businesses and governments.
Among participants in that event are the CEOs of Air France , China’s Sinopec, the McDonald’s Corporation and Royal Dutch Shell.
19 Sept: Bloomberg: Ban Enlisting Business on Climate Change May Win UN Pact
By Sangwon Yoon and Christopher Martin
“Investing wisely in climate change or the environment will help all spectrum of lives and, policies of national governments,” Ban said today in an interview at UN headquarters in New York. “That will be my consistent message at this time.”
Ban pointed to an announcement today from BlackRock Inc. (BLK), the world’s largest money manager, which joined 346 institutional investors managing $24 trillion in assets to call for a price on carbon emissions and a climate agreement to help shift economies away from fossil fuels.
“There are some unfortunately entrenched positions,” Ban said. Some “seem to believe wrongly that investing in climate change or environmental areas is less important than their national policies boosting economic growth.” …
While no agreement will emerge from the summit, it is the largest gathering of heads of state focusing on climate issues, according to the UN…
Ban is hoping to mobilize support for a shift away from investments in fossil fuels and into renewable energy. He has asked CEOs to “please reduce your investment in fossil-based energies and do more on renewable energy.”
“In the past they have been burning this climate, earth in the name of prosperity, economic development,” he said. “But this modality should change. They know that.” ….
forget prosperity & economic development – and watch your retirement funds!

Reply to  pat
September 18, 2014 9:53 pm

Sad. And greedy.

September 18, 2014 6:09 pm

icarus62 September 18, 2014 at 4:09 pm
It’s just the basic physics of how the planet’s energy balance works. You can’t have an argument with the laws of physics and expect to win, you know.
Well, if it is the physics you wish to cite, then start with Stefan-Boltzmann Law. What you will discover is that the effective black body temperature of earth before CO2 doubles is -18 degrees C, and after CO2 doubles it is STILL -18 degrees C. Once you understand that part, then you’ll understand that the runaway warming that you describe upthread is what violates the laws of physics. If you can get your head around that, then we can discuss issues like Mean Radiating Level, sensitivity, and the logarithmic nature of CO2’s effects. Frankly, once you understand those things, there’s not much left to worry about. Provided you ACTUALLY understand the physics you cite.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 18, 2014 6:28 pm

it is clear to me he doesn’t. Icarus62 is troll, and no amount of evidence or data or indisputable fact will alter his posts on WUWT.
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 19, 2014 9:58 am

Smokey, no matter how many times you repeat your “stopped” mantra, it won’t make it true.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 19, 2014 7:57 am

What you will discover is that the effective black body temperature of earth before CO2 doubles is -18 degrees C, and after CO2 doubles it is STILL -18 degrees C.

Of course – it will always tend towards equilibrium with absorbed solar radiation, that’s trivially obvious. Atmospheric CO₂ is responsible for 80% of the forcing which sustains the greenhouse effect, and that’s why it has such a large impact on surface temperature. The Planck response is around 0.29°C/W/m². Fast feedbacks amplify that to 0.75 ± 0.125°C/W/m² (Hansen & Sato, 2011) and slow feedbacks at least double that again (Previdi M et al 2013). We’re really only seeing the beginning of the global warming that is to come, and there are a lot more climate impacts in the pipeline.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 9:20 am

Atmospheric CO₂ is responsible for 80% of the forcing which sustains the greenhouse effect, and that’s why it has such a large impact on surface temperature.
Uhm, no. Not even close. Water vapour is well over 80% of the GHE.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 9:44 am

Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. The greenhouse effect is sustained by the well-mixed, long-lived greenhouse gases which do not condense out of the atmosphere at Earth temperatures and pressures, as water vapour does. Of those gases which sustain the greenhouse effect, CO₂ is responsible for 80% of the forcing.
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis*, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 9:49 am

The funny thing is, global warming stopped quite a while ago.
Draw your own conclusions…

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 10:01 am

Global warming continues unabated and indeed has been accelerating in recent years. The reason for the acceleration is unclear but one possible explanation is that some of the slower climate feedbacks are already kicking in and amplifying the anthropogenic global warming trend.

David A
Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 10:07 am

Icarus says…”There are lots more climate impacts to come.”
Lots more then what? Less intense hurricanes, fewer droughts, flat line NH snow cover, 1 to 2 mm per year SL rise – maybe?
BTW, at what point does a feedback, become a forcing? In theory more warmth = increased water vapor = increased GHE = more CO2 outgassing from oceans. So, is the natural increase in CO2 a feedback to increased water vapor? Are you defining CO2 as a forcing because of the anthropogenic component? Certainly you do not mean that it is 80 percent of the GHE on earth?
(Of course we will ignore that (according to the observations) the alarmist likely have the feedback from water vapor wrong, and that the assumption of a linear climate sensitivity is also likely wrong.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 10:22 am

David A:
Climate impacts such as more intense storms, heavier precipitation, orders of magnitude increases in extreme heatwaves, cryosphere meltdown, accelerating sea level rise and shifting climate zones.
It is expected that carbon sinks will turn into sources in coming decades. Currently the natural world is absorbing half of our CO₂ emissions and that includes the oceans, since the increase in partial pressure in the atmosphere is still more than enough to prevent net outgassing from the warming oceans. It would be wise to try to stop global warming before the carbon cycle feedbacks kick in – that’s if it’s not already too late to have any realistic chance of doing so, which it may well be.

David A
Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 10:25 am

Icarus says, “The greenhouse effect is sustained by the well-mixed, long-lived greenhouse gases which do not condense out of the atmosphere at Earth temperatures and pressures, as water vapour does.”
Nonsense If W/V is continuously added, and continuously precipitates out, then it is the average amount of w/v, not its turn over rate which determines it GHE.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 10:32 am

From the abstract of the paper cited above:

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

Reply to  icarus62
September 19, 2014 10:52 am

Your practice of copying from papers you don’t understand keeps tripping you up. In this case you write

Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. The greenhouse effect is sustained by the well-mixed, long-lived greenhouse gases which do not condense out of the atmosphere at Earth temperatures and pressures, as water vapour does.

That merely demonstrates your ignorance of the difference between the greenhouse effect (GHE) and global warming (GW).
GHE and GW are NOT the same effect although enhanced GHE is one of several possible causes of GW.
Your ignorance of this explains your astonishingly wrong idea that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. And it seems likely that your ignorance of this explains your mysterious inability to understand that GW has stopped.

David A
Reply to  icarus62
September 20, 2014 3:42 am

Icarus says…
David A:
Climate impacts such as more intense storms, heavier precipitation, orders of magnitude increases in extreme heatwaves, cryosphere meltdown, accelerating sea level rise and shifting climate zones.
Your catastrophe is not happening. Nothing outside the normal change is manifesting.
Contrary to Hansen’s wrong predictions, the atmosphere stopped warming two decades ago. He was wrong about the rate of CO2 and other GHG atmospheric accumulation, and wrong about the affect of said increase in GHGs on atmospheric T. He was wrong about SL rise. Virtually all the IPCC climate computer models show way to much warming. (They are all wrong)
Neither the atmospheric surface T, or the atmospheric hotspot have manifested as feared. The ocean warming is less then 1/2 of what was predicted, and the error bars are far larger then shown. You think some heat snuck past our observations to the oceans below 700 meters. You then think that it will somehow, any year now, sneak out of the oceans and cause the catastrophe you predict. You ignore that the fraction of a degree rise in the deep oceans will mean very little for the atmosphere anytime soon. You ignore the decades and centuries it takes to even bring this heat to the surface. You ignore that even if the ocean heat contents are correct, and STILL well below the alarmist predictions, it is likely safely sequestered, and will if anything, potentially provide a very little bit of protection from entering massive cooling associated with ice ages.
You also ignore the known beneficial affects of increased CO2. The affects of which continue to manifest well into any foreseeable human contribution. The projected harms are not manifesting, and the potential warming of CO2 is logarithmically decreasing, while the benefits are manifesting and will continue to.
The world will continue to benefit from additional CO2 , while your “orders of magnitude increases in extreme heatwaves and cryosphere meltdown” will continue to be MIA.

September 18, 2014 10:41 pm

18 Sept: The Hill: Timothy Cama: Steyer to join climate march
Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer will join thousands of others this weekend in a New York City march for climate change action.
Steyer announced his intent to attend the People’s Climate March on Twitter Thursday…
Among those joining Steyer will be U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, former Vice President Al Gore, actor Leonardo DiCaprio and lawmakers including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Reply to  pat
September 19, 2014 9:52 am

Someone should bird dog Steyer with a sign:
Rich ‘greens’ are nothing if not hypocrites.
Reply to  dbstealey
September 19, 2014 10:16 am

Someone should bird dog dbstealy with a sign:

Reply to
September 19, 2014 12:57 pm

YOu are more than welcome to take the job. But then we have to bird dog you with a sign that reads “hypocrites do not recognize hypocrisy”.

Reply to  dbstealey
September 20, 2014 4:30 pm

I believe Al Gore’s family fortune is from oil and tobacco.
His lawyers at the time were the ones spreading the “tobacco is safe” mantra.

Reply to  pat
September 20, 2014 4:27 pm

That sounds like the people to me.
I’m pretty sure Harry Reid won’t be there because he hates the smell of the people…maybe that’s only in DC.

September 18, 2014 11:20 pm

Christiana will be on the march…to save the planet and prevent conflicts around the world!
18 Sept: Deutsche Welle: UN Climate chief, Christiana Figueres: “If we want to prevent conflicts, we have to address climate change now”
Figueres: It is also very interesting that on US land, there will be the people’s climate march, just two days before the summit. That will show that there is, even in the United States, broad and deep public support for global climate policy making…
I’m very grateful to the organizers of the march and to everyone who’s going to be at the march. I will be there, because it’s important to give a very strong message that it is not just the responsibility of governments or corporations, but rather there is also civil society responsibility here to make their awareness and concern felt, and encourage countries and companies to move towards low-carbon economies as soon as possible…

Reply to  pat
September 19, 2014 5:18 am

“That will show that there is, even in the United States, broad and deep public support for global climate policy making…”
I´m sure the protest will be a huge success. They invited anybody who wanted to protest about ANY social causes. I´m going to be there holding a sign: “Free Leopoldo Lopez”, and a group of friends will be protesting against cement plants because they emit a lot of CO2.

David Ball
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 19, 2014 7:23 am

Fernando, please explain how Co2 is a problem.

September 19, 2014 1:50 am

The water vapor cycle, i.e. ocean evaporation, clouds, precipitation, has a hundred times more influence on the heating and cooling of the atmosphere compared to CO2. The magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing/ water vapor/ocean heating feedback loop is trivial. The scientists involved in IPCC AR5 even admit in TS.6 that they are uncertain about the precipitation cycle, cloud behavior, deep ocean heating and CO2, and the magnitude of the CO2 forcing. Those are rather significant doubts and explain why their models are complete failures.

September 19, 2014 2:11 am

Why rational thought will never get through to some people.
Found this video and at first thought it was some sort of joke.
But it’s not. These people are actually weeping, with great despair, about the death of trees.

Has anyone else seen this? Is it possible this was a parody or joke or something along those lines?
They should look at the bright side of elevated level of CO2. Trees and other vegetation are thriving in the higher levels of CO2.
In addition to being a delight to read, with lots of suspense and action, the referenced book comments on the acceleration in growth experienced in the redwood forests of Northern California due to higher levels of CO2.