Weekend Open Thread – call for essays

open_thread I have some major pressing life issues that I have to deal with at this time, so all I can offer is an Open Thread. Feel free to discuss topics within our normal range. Anyone who wants to submit a guest post will be welcomed, provided it is factual and on topic. Use the “submit story” from the pulldown menu if you wish to contribute. If it is a technical essay with embedded graphs, please see the instructions on the submit story page. Thank you for your consideration.

Anthony Watts


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Boles
October 4, 2014 11:41 am

How Green Thy Expo?
By John Boles
Rochester, Michigan held an Earth Day Celebration Expo, on April 18 to 20. (www.earthdayexpo.org) The web site notes, “150+ covered exhibits of earth-friendly, healthy products & services.” and that, “Since its inception in 1970, Earth Day has grown into the world’s largest annual secular event, observed in 150 countries by over one billion people.” That is all fine with me, at face value I am all for it, but I sense something gone awry. This is the Rochester, Michigan where a million electric lights are hung on Main Street in the winter.
Some exhibitors use the words natural, earth-friendly, eco-friendly and herbal to describe their products or services. These words have no specific meaning and are vague marketing buzz words and cause warning lights to flash on the dashboard of my mind.
What caught my attention was the “Wellness Tent”. Whenever I see the words “wellness activities”, “holistic” or “well-being” I smell a scam. Be wary of the words “complimentary” and “alternative medicine”. Quacks who offer “treatments” that give a “sense of well-being” are by definition giving a placebo. You feel better for a few hours, but it is all in your head. Penicillin works even if the patient is in a coma, but with placebo treatments, the person must be awake and aware of receiving the treatment. Trick or treatment?
Three exhibitors, “Natural Awakenings”, “Healing Garden Journal” and “Mind Body Spirit Guide” publish free magazines chock full of nutty new age notions of every stripe; channeling, psychic readers, séances, magnet therapy, reflexology, reiki, energy balancing, ayurvedic, aromatherapy, naturopathic medicine, chi energy, spiritual healing, craniosacral therapy, chiropractic, quantum energy, therapeutic touch. All the popular quackery in one place. How does any of this rubbish connect to a “brighter, greener future” that the Expo touts?
One exhibitor, “The Biomat Company” (www.thebiomatcompany.com) has the most ridiculous claims for their electric heating pad products. The pads are claimed to offer “quantum healing energetics, negative ions, far infrared” and claim a connection to a Nobel prize awarded to Neher and Sakmann in cellular chemistry. The word “quantum” is a sure sign of a scam. When the pads can warm up without being plugged in is when they may use the word quantum. The organizers of the Earth Day Expo help legitimize quackery when they allow this kind of exhibitor to prey on people.
As a mechanical engineer, I know enough about energy, chemistry and technology to see past the hype. At least one electric car on display claimed “zero emissions”. That really insults my intelligence. To build a car makes emissions, and making electricity in the US means burning coal. I have nothing against making electricity, but here again the claims ring empty.
The expo should carry the notice “FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY”. A stellar example of this is the $19,000 Hammacher Schlemmer pedal car built for seven people, a nice gee-whiz gadget, but of no practical use. The Expo is a study in Greenwashing and irrational exuberance. Most, if not all offerings are placebos, ways to look and feel green, but without substance.
To be sure, people want a source for green products and services, where they can feel good about their purchases and think that they are making a difference. They want fast gratification without the work of digging past the claims. At the end of the day they get in their SUVs and return to their heated homes, air conditioning, electricity, plumbing, kids and dogs. I can’t blame them. As Americans, we are all oil addicts, no matter how “green” you think you are. One can do very little without giving up a comfy life style. It is virtually impossible to make anything or do anything in a meaningfully “green” manner; it will always use a resource and create carbon dioxide. You can not make an omelet without braking eggs. We can recycle some things, drive a smaller car, compost yard waste, but we don’t want to cause ourselves any pain. And it would take a whole lot of pain to make any difference.
If you really want to be green, live like the Amish. No phone, no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury, like 1793, it’s as primitive as can be.

Chris Thixton
Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 1:02 pm

In truth they may as well all go and dance around Stonehenge John.

Sam Hall
Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 1:08 pm

There was a protest somewhere in California and one poster had a sign “Who needs oil, we ride the bus” that explained the greens to me.

Reply to  Sam Hall
October 5, 2014 12:51 am


Jim South London
Reply to  Sam Hall
October 5, 2014 2:49 am

“who needs oil”? the bus company.

Reply to  Sam Hall
October 5, 2014 4:18 am


chris moffatt
Reply to  Sam Hall
October 5, 2014 4:26 am

Well it might have been a bus powered by natural gas which, as we know, is just totes green and eco-friendly

Reply to  Sam Hall
October 5, 2014 4:52 am


Reply to  Sam Hall
October 5, 2014 2:10 pm
Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 2:40 pm

2 billion people on earth celebrate earth day each and every day of the year. they have no lights to turn off.

Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 3:08 pm

I went to the worlds first Environmental Expo worlds fair in 1974 held in Spokane Washington (state).

HGW xx/7
Reply to  garymount
October 4, 2014 5:25 pm

I love Spokane, capital of the saner half of the state. I found it so funny when I heard that this conservative/libertarian city was the site of such a “green” affair. Of course, it was back when the movement was actually about making the earth cleaner at a time when it was truly necessary, and the control afforded it now was only a glint in Erlich’s eye. Nice to see that Spokane didn’t keep taking the Kool-Aid, although, with most of the state’s population living in Seattle, it is having the tonic forcibly consumed via an IV of leftist domination. 😛

Sam Martin
Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 6:47 pm

You forgot to advice people to stop breathing. Also pass no flatus…

Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 7:18 pm

“If you really want to be green, live like the Amish. No phone, . . . .”
Actually, they are big on cell phones, because they enhance community.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  rogerknights
October 4, 2014 8:07 pm

The Amish are just as hypocritical as anyone else. They arbitrarily choose which technology they will use.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 8:06 pm

If a box of granola on a store shelf can be called “100% Natural” then a nuclear reactor is also 100% natural. Both are made from all natural ingredients, and manipulated by humans.

george e. smith
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 4, 2014 9:59 pm

“100% natural” means no transuranic elements.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 5, 2014 10:21 am

But there ARE natural uranium reactors underground below the Congo jungles … Been bubbling away down there for millions of years.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 6, 2014 10:19 am

Actually Gabon. Oklo pit (now abandoned).
Visited site. Fascinating deposit.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 6, 2014 10:25 am

IMO the last natural U fission reactors known existed under Gabon about 1.7 billion years ago.

Reply to  John Boles
October 5, 2014 4:51 am

Very good. I had a good laugh too as you see what you describe so often.
BTW…did you mean complementary?

Jim Francisco
Reply to  John Boles
October 5, 2014 8:37 am

Imagine where the Amish would be without the iron and steel parts of their tools, buggies and wagons. Even the Amish would have a tough time without some industry burning coal to produce the iron and steel.

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  John Boles
October 6, 2014 12:30 am

Actually, real modern green technology for housing can be quite high tech.
1. Underfloor heating linked to solar panels and/or external heat pumps can make a house self-sufficient in heating. Yes there is some carbon usage in manufacturing solar panels and heat pumps, not to mention all the piping etc, but the house is designed to generate its own warmth.
2. Anaerobic digestion plants can generate gas for cooking and/or boilers if you want. For them to work well, you need a plant of sufficient size, which is why they are mainly located on farms, but rural communities can be self-reliant in domestic gas and water heating by simply reorganising farm activities to include an AD.
3. Modern glazing can also be linked to energy generation. Yes, making the glass is highly carbon utilising, but if the windows last 100 years, that’s better than building cheap gash that has to be knocked down in a decade, isn’t it?
4. Most modern eco-houses have advanced computer-based monitoring systems for air conditioning, temperature regulation etc etc. Quite the modern life, isn’t it?
Sensible green living combines modern comforts with an approach which doesn’t waste things for the sake of it or for narrow short-term profit of a small number of people.

October 4, 2014 11:45 am
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  DirkH
October 4, 2014 12:13 pm

Thanks for that link! I just went on a re-tweet-and-fave blitz over there.

Reply to  DirkH
October 5, 2014 2:47 am

… UR dangerious to the future.

That could be a top internet meme. Let’s try it.

Reply to  DirkH
October 5, 2014 3:00 am

October 5, 2014 at 2:47 am
” … UR dangerious to the future.
That could be a top internet meme. Let’s try it.”
Channels his inner Schwarzenegger.

Reply to  DirkH
October 5, 2014 4:34 am

Actually, this kind of behaviour supports the supposition that nazi pictures on skepticalscience were not just some guys playing around, but reflect the true nature and core values of climate alarmists.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  DirkH
October 4, 2014 12:06 pm

HoHo! I went to the link and saw how Laden claimed that Curry was a denialist, ‘because, given the chance, she declined to say she wasn’t’. What wonderful logic; what a great intellect has Laden! It’s on a par with: ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ So pathetic.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 4, 2014 12:13 pm

On further reading of your second link to the ‘twit’ feed, Dirk: I realise I have a whole tranche of education missing in my life: The language – the dialogue – of twitting. It is extremely hard to follow and I often come to the conclusion that I shouldn’t bother. Life is already too short.

george e. smith
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 4, 2014 10:03 pm

Well “twit” explains all. So you can converse without using any ASCII character more than once.
Whoopee ! Well that’s enough to report all that is in these twits brain.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 5, 2014 10:42 am

If she weighs the same as a duck… she’s a witch. You mean that kind of logic?

Political Junkie
Reply to  DirkH
October 4, 2014 1:10 pm

Did you see this from Steyn to Laden – brilliant!
“Maybe she’s (Judith Curry) hiding the decline just to torment you?”

Reply to  DirkH
October 5, 2014 4:30 am

Greg Laden, Climate idiot of the week. No better fit; Climate creep of the week.

October 4, 2014 12:16 pm

Global warming may be causing California to shrink!

3 October 2014
“California might be shrinking in mass due to climate change-induced drought”

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Jimbo
October 4, 2014 12:29 pm

Well that explains the ‘climate change affects gravity’ meme…..

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 4, 2014 4:24 pm

One of the best laughs I’ve had on this dismal abysmal science for a long time. CO2 reduces gravity AND increases levity 🙂

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 4, 2014 4:25 pm

One of the best laughs I’ve had on this dismal abysmal science for a long time. CO2 reduces gravity AND increases levity 🙂
Sorry screwed up the html

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 4, 2014 6:50 pm

Who knew you could line out a dash?

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 5, 2014 10:28 am

Line out a dash?
Heck! I’m really impressed with how Robert of Ottawa managed to not only erase the extended dash, but didn’t even smudge ONE pixel of the letters he left un-dashed when he erased the line!
(Must be a Canadian thing. They know all about lines, being as they’re the only ones on earth who can understand the blue line theory behind the Hockey Stick. (Ahead of their hockey sticks?))

John M
October 4, 2014 12:26 pm

A twofer from today’s Drudge Report…
First, a fringe wing of the climate “science” community feels the need to “fasttrack” the link between extreme weather events and climate change.
Then we have Joe Biden continuing to see how many shoes he can add to the two feet that are already in his mouth by vastly overstating the number of tornado deaths in Joplin, MO 3 years ago.
Since the real numbers don’t matter anyway, it seems the answer for those “fasttrackers” is simple. Just call Joe, and he’ll instantaneously provide you with any number you want.

Reply to  John M
October 5, 2014 2:50 am

Hi John M,
The Guardian piece says

Scientists are to challenge the climate-change sceptics by vastly improving the speed with which they can prove links between a heatwave or other extreme weather event and man-made changes to the atmosphere.

I notice that’s not very scientific. You go out to look to “prove” something rather than disprove it. They go on to assert…

It typically takes about a year to determine whether human-induced global warming played a role in a drought, storm, torrential downpour or heatwave – and how big a role it played…….
They are developing a new scientific model that will shrink to as little as three days the time it takes to establish or rule out a link to climate change,……

I stopped reading at this point. Models don’t prove anything. They had failed to project the surface temperature standstill as well as the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. There failures have been kept track of here.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 4:10 am

I’m glad they didn’t develop a new non-scientific, or maybe a ‘witchcraft’ based model.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 4:58 am

“they can prove links between a heatwave or other extreme weather event and man-made changes to the atmosphere.”
Yeah I can prove I was abducted by aliens pretty quick too. It’s easy to provide “proof” when you are just making stuff up using stuff other people made up.
There is no conceivable way to link discreet regional weather events with man-made changes to the atmosphere. Climate scientists themselves claim that their dicipline is climate not weather. If man-made changes to the atmosphere cause extreme weather, it must also affect all weather which is as stupid as it sounds. It is not debatable that humanity like all other life makes “changes” to the atmosphere, to take that and jump 20 sharks to it’s humanity causing a rainy weekend in New Jersey or a hurricane (or lack of hurricane) in the Atlantic is rediculous.
This is good old Joe Goebbel type stuff.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 7:38 am

Good spot there Jimbo.
They have reinvented Dogma.
Shame they are too thick to see their idiocy.

October 4, 2014 12:27 pm

Exciting times ahead, I think, if my ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ discovery is how to move forward: :

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  cleanenergypundit
October 4, 2014 12:37 pm

I am Really hoping you have discovered a frictionless material.

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 4, 2014 7:34 pm

… and you won’t get any click-throughs. 😉

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 4, 2014 7:35 pm

o) that should have been down at … “cleanenergypundit October 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm”

Reply to  cleanenergypundit
October 4, 2014 12:38 pm

Ya gotta give me a bit more information than that if you want me to click your link.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 4, 2014 1:40 pm

If people want us to click links you have to provide more information. I don’t click such empty links unless the url says something interesting in the absence of a description.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 4, 2014 4:23 pm

wouldn’t be a surpise, then 😉

Bill H
Reply to  cleanenergypundit
October 4, 2014 5:04 pm

Due to wind turbine unreliability, the light at the end of the tunnel is no longer used.. (We cant afford the coal fired plants to ensure its function.) /sarc

Reply to  Bill H
October 4, 2014 7:34 pm

Perhaps the ‘streamers’ from the solar are really canaries escaped from the coal mine.

Greg White
October 4, 2014 12:53 pm

This talk by Robert Bryce really put the global use of coal and growth in perspective for me. Once you a grip on these numbers, it’s clear that a doubling of CO2 is unstoppable and anyone’s opinion about CAGW is moot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crefcQpwA5w#t=1521

A C Osborn
October 4, 2014 12:56 pm

Anthony, I hope “some major pressing life issues that I have to deal with at this time” is nothing too serious.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 4, 2014 3:49 pm

Best wishes and I hope it all turns out good for you.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 4, 2014 10:27 pm

Well I hope we can help. You’re very important to us!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 5, 2014 11:48 am

My thoughts are with you and your family.

October 4, 2014 1:03 pm

Hi from Oz. Can somebody please tell me why, if the IPCC science states that only 3percent of atmospheric CO2 is caused by humans, and the other 97percent is due to natural causes such as ocean out gassing (about 60percent I think), that almost every “scientific” paper that appears ignores this fact and assumes (or pretends) that 100 percent of the increase in CO2 (and therefore Earth’s temperature) issue to this 3 percent? Is human-caused CO2 magically different from all the other CO2 on this planet, or Am I missing something?

Richard M
Reply to  Boyfromtottenham
October 4, 2014 1:36 pm

The assumption is that all the sources and sinks were in equilibrium. Humans then added a new source which accounts for the increases. Yes, a pretty simplistic view but hard to argue against so I don’t even try. Added CO2 is actually a benefit to the environment so why shouldn’t humans take credit?

Reply to  Richard M
October 4, 2014 2:33 pm

I could argue. If the oceans are warming as alarmists say – most of the increase is obviously offgassing of CO2 from the ocean.
Of course this presents a problem. Alarmists claim the PH of the ocean is going down. This can only happen if the oceans are cooling and therefore absobing CO2. If the oceans are warming at an alarming rate as they claim, the PH of the ocean should go up as it releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
October 4, 2014 8:22 pm

The problem is that not all of the human emissions are showing up in the atmosphere. Only about half. This leaves some to be absorbed by the oceans. However, once again this is actually a boon to ocean life.

Reply to  Richard M
October 4, 2014 9:42 pm

No I believe the sinks are greater, which is why CO2 reduced from probaly similar levels as on Venus and Mars to what we have now, most of our CO2 went to producing oxygen or making carbonates (zillions tons of limestone) what we are doing (accidentally) now is restoring levels to an amount where life can thrive.

Reply to  Richard M
October 5, 2014 5:03 am

Obviously the sources and sinks were in equilibrium because Michael Mann proved that things like Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period did not exist.

Reply to  Richard M
October 5, 2014 5:32 am

The argument is the atmosphere is dynamic but the outcome of all that natural dynamic activity is and has always been static. There are two irrational assumptions with this; our environments equilibrium is static while humanity is the only entity that could ever affect it, and that a methodology for establishing the baseline for the perfect atmospheric equilibrium baseline has been defined.
So yes, it is a hard argument since it is difficult to have a rational argument based on irrational assumptions.
Meanwhile I will ask climate alarmists where the CO2 in coal came from, was it pulled out of humanities posterior? If it was put there by equilibrium, where is the evidence that the equilibrium decided to keep it there forever?

Bruce Ploetz
Reply to  Boyfromtottenham
October 4, 2014 2:04 pm

Boyfromtottenham, the reasoning behind these claims of human “tampering” with the climate are truly bizarre. They say that “natural” (as if humans were un-natural!) sources of CO2 exactly balance the natural sinks of CO2 such as plant life. So if there were no Evil Humans, the natural planet would never change. No nasty heat, no fearful cold. It is an offshoot of the natural balance theory that says all would be beautiful and wonderful if there were no humans, as they used to say “We have met the enemy and they are us”. This completely ignores the ice core data, evidence everywhere on earth of ancient ice ages, the current Ice Age, evidence of the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age, all of it. You really have to have your head in the sand to believe such nonsense but people do, or at least pretend to when it suits their alarmist agenda. The funniest part is when you ask them: “where all this evil CO2 came from in the first place?” Factually the very early “wonderful natural planet” was lifeless and had many times the CO2 levels of today. Somehow it did not burn up like Venus. Then life came along and started sequestering the CO2 and producing oxygen. All that “carbon pollution” is the natural consequence of natural processes long ago that gave us the world we have today. It has changed in many dramatic and wonderful ways. It is not static and unchanging, never has been and never will be. To think that some humans can “stop climate change” by taking the bus is hubris of the highest order.

Reply to  Bruce Ploetz
October 5, 2014 5:36 am

“To think that some humans can “stop climate change” by taking the bus is hubris of the highest order.”
I agree but go further. I think it is stepping into clinical madness or religious extremisim which are sometimes indistinguishable.

Reply to  Boyfromtottenham
October 4, 2014 6:28 pm

It does seem odd that CO2 remained in ‘perfect balance’ for millennia, with ‘the system’ somehow coping with and smoothing out any peaks or troughs… Yet when man comes along and adds a further few percent, ‘the system’ can suddenly continually deal with only half of his output, and the other half accumulates.
I guess that scenario is possible, but atmospheric CO2 levels being temperature driven seems more likely to me.

Reply to  markx
October 5, 2014 5:44 am

Yes, that scenario is possible as well as a dozen others. Maybe in a hundred years we will have better answers. The fact remains there is still alot we do not know, there is alot we cannot control.
There are things we can do like preventing factories from spewing toxins into our rivers or reducing smog in our cities with vehicle pollution controls, but climate scientist would have us believe that even though we can not prevent cancer or cure the common cold, we can manage the planets atmosphere.
Meanwhile I am still waiting for condos in our moon colonies to open up for sale.

Reply to  Boyfromtottenham
October 5, 2014 12:19 am

Boyfromtottenham, you’re new here right? Hope this helps. Suggest you get your calculator and type in a million (1,000,000). Now divide it by 400 (CO2 is 400 ppm). Your answer gives you the fraction of all the total CO2 compared to every other gas up there in the sky. Answer = 1/2,500th. Not a lot then.
Now, if anthropogenic CO2 is only around 13 ppm (3.2%) compared to naturally occurring CO2 at around 387 ppm (96.8%), then you have sufficient evidence to question why so many mis-informed, hoodwinked and gullible people waste tera-nano-squillions of cash trying to make this incredibly microscopic amount of gas go away in order to save the planet from Armageddon.

October 4, 2014 1:14 pm

Greg White – the “doubling of CO2” that you mention can only happen if the recent claimed increase in CO2 is actually caused by burning coal. See my post above – the IPCC says that only 3 percent of CO2 is due to human activity, so logically only 3 percent of any rise in CO2 is too. If the other 97 percent is natural, why all the fuss? Get on with your wonderful fossil- fuelled life.

Reply to  Boyfromtottenham
October 4, 2014 7:40 pm

Sigh … far too logical ! That’s why more people are becoming sceptical of the climate farce.

Reply to  Boyfromtottenham
October 5, 2014 5:49 am

That makes perfect sense but their argument is that all of the increase is due to human activity not just 3%.
They are saying if you put a few drops of water into a glass and then put it out in the rain and it over flows, then those few drops are what caused the cup to overflow.
It is the delusional/irational assumption that atmospheric CO2 never changed before the industrial age came along.

October 4, 2014 1:20 pm

I do hope the life pressing issues aren’t some sort of health issue or issue with well being of family.
hoping all is ok with you.

October 4, 2014 1:25 pm

So, like, I’m trying to get a little crowd-sourced peer-review going for an interesting bit of scholarly research that has the potential to settle, once-and-for-all, any question as to the real worry, if any, in all that scare-mongering agit-prop the brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie eco-hustlers are always throwing in our faces, supposedly on behalf of the kids and the polar bears and the baby penguin-chicks and all that sort of good stuff.
In particular, I’ve become intrigued with the paradigm-busting proposal of a certain Professor Scott Napper, who maintains that boogers have a–and I quote–“sugary taste” which is Gaia’s way of enticing us to eat our boogers which are good for us (Goggle: “Gizmodo boogers”).
Unfortunately, I am unable to independently test the accuracy of Professor Napper’s claims since I’m a normal human being and a regular guy and, frankly, socially-competent mature-adults, like moi, just don’t do “snout-snacks”. And I’m further handicapped in my peer-review efforts by the unhappy fact that the denizens of the Deltoid blog–who can all speak authoritatively and from vast personal experience to the “sweet-tooth” delights of goobers and similar “finger-food” treats–are inaccessible to me, directly, because the Deltoids have classified me as a persona-non-grata pariah-dude, or something like that.
So I’m using WUWT as a platform from which to reach out to you denizens of Deltoid-land, to urge you to contribute to my critical scrutiny of Professor Napper’s revolutionary views regarding that “finger-lickin’ good” nose-candy you creep-out Deltoids so seem to enjoy. Can copy!

Reply to  mike
October 4, 2014 1:36 pm

“Gizmodo boogers.”
Mike you need to involve the U.N in this because clearly a global effort is required. But more important ; the theme music.
i respectfully submit for your consideration . . .
United Nations stomp from the album – Booger Bear

October 4, 2014 1:54 pm

As you know I’m a multimodal scientist focused on political science, psychology and their link to global warming. I’ve just finished a new paper, “Qualitative Analysis of President Obama´s Speech at the UN”, which I plan to publish in Nature Psychodynamics. The paper includes a strictly statistical analysis using a word frequency count, supplemented by a subjective deformation using the Cook-Oreskes-Lewandowski technique. The paper leads to two possible outcomes, with a reality branch pathway chosen according to the reader’s cognitive dissonance and political belief structures.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
October 4, 2014 1:59 pm

Men in black are knocking on your door.

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 4, 2014 2:18 pm

I went underground right after Kennedy threatened to send me to The Hague.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
October 5, 2014 6:04 am

Interesting the word war had the highest incident. I guess we know where Americas focus is.

Reply to  Alx
October 5, 2014 6:55 am

I started the word analysis to spoof Norgaard, Oreskes and the othe psychologist types who think I´m nuts. However, I did find the word count to be really interesting (I had expected more babble about climate change). So I decided to make Obama into a neo imperialist using his own words.
What´s really funny is that qualitative analysis does allow you to create your focus group, interview them, and then write a paper about their opinions (in my case I used a single person: Obama).
There´s no set methodology to control your interview/study subject selection, nor do you have to be unbiased. They do warn you not to claim you can extend the analysis beyond the group you interview or investigate. This is why I turned Obama around, made him a war like creature, used my own anti war bias (let´s face it, I´m opposed to most wars).
So I used what I wanted to use to the fullest extent, with no qualms about being realistic or anything like that. In the end I decided the solution was to give him a psychiatric treatment with mood altering drugs. It´s all science, I even used references and everything.

average joe
October 4, 2014 2:13 pm

Here is one of the best videos I have seen, puts things in perspective. Very funny too!

Reply to  average joe
October 4, 2014 2:41 pm

I wonder how old this is? And I wonder what would happen to any comic who tried to do a version of this in front of a modern University crowd?

Patrick Maher
Reply to  peter
October 5, 2014 12:07 am

Peter, according to his discography it’s from Jammin’ in New York released in 1992

Reply to  average joe
October 4, 2014 6:23 pm

Wow, I had forgotten how close to reality Carlin always was. Thanks for sharing! This should be the mantra and “in your face” video, we post!

Reply to  KWG1947
October 5, 2014 1:27 am

I miss his realism, absolutely loved this gentleman! Had not seen this clip for awhile but boy was he ever on the mark.

Patrick Maher
Reply to  average joe
October 5, 2014 12:02 am

this one and his football vs baseball routine are true classics

Reply to  average joe
October 5, 2014 6:01 am

Like all great comics, he had great insight into the human condition.
Which BTW is what I believe Climate Science is, more about the human condition and psychology than the atmosphere.

October 4, 2014 2:24 pm

I feel worried. I hope all is well. Will pray and so will many. (:

Reply to  Zeke
October 4, 2014 3:54 pm


Reply to  Zeke
October 5, 2014 9:47 am

I am worried also.

Reply to  Zeke
October 5, 2014 10:38 am

On the plus side, “epic” can mean “really good.”
I never know about these things. By the time I learn about a new meme, it is 10 years old.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Zeke
October 5, 2014 11:57 am

Lot’s of possibilities.
(Maybe Kenji is going to be a Dad? 😎
Good or bad, prayer never hurts.

Reply to  Zeke
October 5, 2014 2:49 pm

Ah, good thought! Future concerned scientists.

October 4, 2014 2:43 pm

I have a question, so the sun heats up the planet and the theory is that extra heat is then trapped by the excess C02 in the atmosphere and not allowed to escape back in to space. This then heats up the oceans and causes all sorts of problems due to there being extra energy in the system. So my question is, would the extra heat energy in the ocean not be canceled out by increased evaporation levels and the increased levels of cloud then reflect more sunlight back in to space?
Simplistic I know but my understanding is that evaporation cools things down!

Ian H
Reply to  Letelemarker
October 4, 2014 3:39 pm

Yes I know this sounds reasonable, but it is wrong because it would mean global warming wasn’t a serious problem.

Reply to  Letelemarker
October 4, 2014 3:50 pm

Letelemarker October 4, 2014 at 2:43 pm
I have a question, so the sun heats up the planet and the theory is that extra heat is then trapped by the excess C02 in the atmosphere and not allowed to escape back in to space.

This is not the theory. It is how it gets expressed in the MSM though, and it aggravates me to no end that the proponents of the theory, the warmist climatologists themselves, don’t correct it. Changes in CO2 concentration do cause some energy to be “trapped” but it is an amount that is so small that it can be effectively rounded off to zero, and it would only exist in between equilibrium states. At equilibrium, the amount of energy escaping into space is exactly the same after CO2 doubles as it is before. What changes is the temperature profile from earth surface to top of atmosphere. The average altitude (Mean Radiating Level) at which any given photon escapes from earth to space becomes a little bit higher. The temps above the MRL go down a bit, the temps below the MRL go up a bit. Think of it like a teeter totter. Push one end down, the other end goes up, but if you measure the average height of the teeter totter from one end to the other, it doesn’t change.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 4, 2014 4:12 pm

davidmhoffer, a very nice description everyone can understand. When the MRL goes up a bit, the result is to cause more radiation into space so the overall effect is muted by something a bit like a negative feedback as it should.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 4, 2014 5:30 pm

davidmhoffer “Changes in CO2 concentration do cause some energy to be “trapped” but it is an amount that is so small that it can be effectively rounded off to zero, and it would only exist in between equilibrium states. At equilibrium, the amount of energy escaping into space is exactly the same after CO2 doubles as it is before.”
Three problems with your ‘explanation’, 3.6 watts is not zero and the system never reaches equilibrium. Most importantly though the ‘greenhouse’ effect primarily takes place in the ocean which absorbs SW radiation and emits LW radiation. Most of the atmospheric LW radiation is reflected, like the internals of a LASERs gain medium.
The heating and lapse rate of the atmosphere is primarily from LW surface radiation.

average joe
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 4, 2014 7:54 pm

Genghis, One big problem with your three problems regarding davidmhoffer’s explanation. The global average temperature is not supporting your hypothesis. You state your view as if it is fact. I suggest you give it another 20 yrs and then re-evaluate.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 5, 2014 6:49 am

Average Joe, The average temperature of the ocean is around 5.5˚C exactly what the S-B equation predicts. It isn’t going to change.

average joe
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 5, 2014 6:33 pm

Ancient bit of wisdom.
He who knows that he knows is a leader, follow him.
He who knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him.
Sometimes you have to look closely to tell the difference.
But there is always a difference.

george e. smith
Reply to  Letelemarker
October 4, 2014 10:36 pm

The sun doesn’t heat up the planet. The planet heats itself up , by simply wasting the good quality solar radiant energy, we get, in very inefficient processes. If we covered the earth in solar cells, then we could turn the solar energy into electricity to power all your hand twiddling toys, that many of you folks seem to prefer to actually doing some useful work.
But we wouldn’t get any food if we stopped all of the solar energy in our solar cells, to make electricity.
So we simply waste what we get for free, which is the good socialist way of living anyway.
And the heat the planet makes for itself, can’t escape to space, because space is empty space, and heat doesn’t travel through empty space.
So the heat has to be converted back to good quality electro-magnetic radiation, which can escape to space. At night, from space, you can see some of that energy escaping, in the form of visible EM radiation that we make out of our electricity, and sometimes heat.
But mostly we have to run a heat engine to convert the heat back into radiation. The so-called black body radiator is the most efficient machine for turning heat into radiation, but no such thing exists, so various pseudo black body radiators do a half pie job of converting waste heat into radiation so it can escape. We call those thermal radiators. They make radiation depending only on their temperature.
But it is impossible to convert 100% of heat into radiation, so we can never get rid of all the heat we make on earth.
But the earth likes to sit around a comfortable temperature range, at which the hot materials on earth (anything above zero K), can turn heat into radiation fast enough to stop us from overheating.
North Korea is not pulling its weight in its failure to turn waste heat, into visible EM radiation to help keep the planet cool.
But we are energy wastrels anyhow. The vast majority of all our energy sources on earth, are first converted to waste heat, before we finally use it for something beneficial. So it’s like dumpster diving. We live off the energy crap that we make out of our original valuable energy sources.
And if you think I have some sarc tag around here somewhere, you don’t know me.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 4, 2014 11:38 pm

Heh !

Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 4:06 am

george e. smith you forgot the sarc tag.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Letelemarker
October 6, 2014 6:17 am

Yes, search this site for articles by Willis Eisenbach

October 4, 2014 2:49 pm

I’d like those here who are usually serious about science and the climate, to participate in a thread to decide the best name to describe our “opposition” (those serious about using a climate scare to gain political objectives).
It may seem juvenile to many here that we are called names such as “climate deniers”, told “the science is settled”, by people who refuse to debate with us and make up statistics such as 97% of scientists agree with them.
The truth is the name calling and slogans are not juvenile — they are political tools used to ridicule opponents and used to avoid debates with them.
If you want to understand how useful they are, read both of Saul Alinsky’s books and his Playboy interview. I have.
The best, and perhaps only, way to fight these tools is to go on the offensive in a consistent way.
We need good names for our opposition and what they do in the name of climate science.
My own proposal is “climate astrologers” — and they are “science deniers”..
And these climate astrologers play computer games (climate model simulations) for a living because games are more fun than real science!
Do you have any better names than mine:
(“climate astrologers”, and science deniers” who play “computer games”)
to describe our opposition?

Steve P
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2014 5:01 pm

Name calling is a bad plan;
Play the ball, not the man.
I refer to proponents of the busted CAGW conjecture as alarmists., but maybe false alarmists is better?

Rhys Read
Reply to  Steve P
October 4, 2014 5:36 pm

I prefer to call them CAGWHA (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hysterical alarmists). It has a nice alliterative feel to the word.

Sam Martin
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2014 6:54 pm

Proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (POCAGWs) is polite.
I have put [off] a person or two by referring to them as warmists or alarmists. The aim is to get people thinking not alienate or antagonise them.

Sam Martin
Reply to  Sam Martin
October 4, 2014 7:10 pm

Off not of oops

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2014 7:29 pm

“thermorrhoids” and “doom-butt phonies” (hive-bozos never practice what they preach) would be my suggestions. But, then, my objective is to take arrogant, bumptious, puffed-up lefty-parasites and their rip-off, power-and-control stratagems down a notch. Ditto for their carbon-spew brazen-hypocrisies.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2014 8:31 pm

It depends on who you are dealing with. If it is an obvious religious follower type then nothing you say will change their opinion. I often refer to them as clientologists (a play on Scientology). Otherwise, I also suggest avoiding name calling.

Reply to  Richard M
October 5, 2014 10:43 am

“Climatologists” rather than “clientologists”? Catastrophysists?

James Allison
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2014 11:07 pm

Up thread commenters in a Twichy link use the name “hoaxers”. I like it because thats what they are.

Patrick Maher
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 5, 2014 12:24 am

Words are my business, there is but one that will do: Allegorist. A teller of tall tales and fables. May be spelled Allegorist, Al Gorest or Al Goreist

Reply to  Patrick Maher
October 5, 2014 2:55 am

Climate fabulists.

Reply to  Patrick Maher
October 5, 2014 4:26 am

No, Climate Trolls.
NOT as an insult, but to exactly characterize their behaviour.
Remember how Gavin Schmidt always pointed out that Climate Models “work from first principles”? Consciously HIDING the fact that they have 100+ fudge factor parameters in there?
This is TROLLING. Has nothing to do with science or with reason or with logic, it is TROLLING, because the explicit intent is to stop the debate.
So we have reached a point where THE TROLLS HAVE CAPTURED THE SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS. Somehow they managed to slip through university, get degrees, and get a job at GISS, and elsewhere, and are now running the place; and all our taxpayer money feeds not scientists but trolls, who will never deliver a scientific discovery, BTW, have you noticed, no climate modeler has ever delivered a scientific discovery nor would we ever expect that – nor would the media ever expect that! It has become perfectly acceptable to the public to tolerate a super expensive field of study that doesn’t even pretend to deliver any results beyond an uncertain “The End Is Nigh”! It’s sociology all over again, only with supercomputers!

Reply to  Patrick Maher
October 6, 2014 8:31 am

Does that mean I’ll have to stop using “Al Bore”?
He took two science courses in college, you should know.
Didn’t get an A or B in either one of them,
but went on to make a lot of money telling tall tales.
Just goes to show you don’t have to know anything about science
to give slide presentations about the (dum da dumb dumb)
coming climate catastrophe.
Knowing how clever Al Bore is, I bet he’s already obtained a license
to open a row boat and canoe rental company in Manhattan
(after it is underwater, and Canal Street is really a canal!)

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 5, 2014 7:00 am

I use climate zombies when I write in jest. But I´m not a fully qualified skeptic either. I think CO2 does warm the planet, but it does it less than claimed by the IPCC and the climate bwanas. I guess I´m a zombie like creature?

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 5, 2014 12:52 pm

I’m rather fond of “Climateer.” I get the mental picture of a bunch of teen aged know-it-alls wearing funny hats, all brought together in the service of a fictional construct… but instead of a cartoon mouse it’s man made climate change or disaster or disruption or whatever buzzword is “in” on this week’s episode being filmed at the clubhouse.

M Courtney
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 6, 2014 3:57 am

Playing the man is a weak weapon. It alienates neutrals.
But you are right about the power of words to frame the debate. So I propose renaming (or clarifying) the belief of our opposition.
It is newsworthy Anthropogenic Global Warming. If they want Climate Change – OK. So long as they accept newsworthy . It has to be newsworthy for the Precautionary Principle to be applied. But there is no 97% consensus that it is newsworthy. Indeed anything that takes 18 years out is a mere scientific curiosity, not news at all.
And politicians care about the news.
In politics potential is nothing, it’s the current that kills.

October 4, 2014 3:12 pm

IPCC clearly states that their mandate is man caused climate change. You take the king’s shilling, you do the king’s bidding.

Rick K
October 4, 2014 3:24 pm

Anthony, well wishes to you and the family. I miss you already! Do what you must do… we will be here!

October 4, 2014 3:39 pm

Shhh… Alarmists are not interested in negative feedbacks, only positive feedback.

October 4, 2014 3:40 pm

I am looking to help my niece with a required science project and I want to poke a little fun at her
“save the Earth” teacher. I would like to build a three chambered terrarium to grow plants.
One chamber would have a normal level of CO2 “pollutant”, one would have double and
one would have a much of that dastardly CO2 removed as possible.
Quick questions:
1) Ideas for appropriate plants?
2) Will soda lime be sufficient to keep the CO2 low if I force the air over it?
3) Any other ideas?
Many thanks.

Reply to  Todd
October 4, 2014 3:52 pm

Lot’s of excellent information regarding the growth response of various plants to different levels of CO2.

Reply to  Todd
October 4, 2014 6:22 pm

Don’t make trouble for your niece so that you can have some fun.

Todd M.
Reply to  Alex
October 4, 2014 6:38 pm

I completely agree.
It would be done as a pure experiment. No PC words, no links to politics,
just data and results. I have never talked to her (or her teacher) about AGW
or my position.
I am not sure it will work as intended. The soda lime may not absorb enough
CO2 to make a difference.

Reply to  Todd
October 4, 2014 7:15 pm

Todd, your experiment is too hard and the results won’t ‘prove’ anything, there are just too many variables. The plants are likely to all die.
May I suggest that you carefully weigh the dry soil and then plant a fast growing plant like grass, then extract the grass from the soil, dry and weigh both the soil and the grass. The soil will be ~exactly the same weight and the dry grass weight will entirely have come from the atmosphere, carbon.
It won’t be as much ‘fun’ but you can essentially make the same point, just not as cleanly.

Reply to  Genghis
October 4, 2014 10:15 pm

I think you will find that it is mainly cellulose- (C6H10O5)n. So it won’t be just carbon.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Genghis
October 14, 2014 2:03 pm

He didn’t say he was out “prove” anything. I suspect he’s only out demonstrate or illustrate. Despite computer generated illustrations and fantasies, real life still leaves an impression.
To add to what I said below, additional CO2 can be added with a CO2 cartridge for a BB gun. Add it then seal it.
Remove the CO2 as I suggested if no one gives a better suggestion then unplug the air pump (no added heat) and seal it.
Hopefully the difference will be obvious.
You didn’t mention the age group. That would make a difference in the detail you’d need to go into. You’re not out to deceive like “An Inconvenient Truth” but to illustrate that CO2 is not toxic.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Todd
October 5, 2014 12:09 pm

Assuming you have the apparatus to do this, for 2 I would suggest bubbling the air through a solution. Add a drop or two of phenolphthalein to give you an idea when it’s time to change the solution.
( Phenolphthalein will give a reddish color in a solution above 8.3 pH. It is clear below that.)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 10, 2014 1:38 pm

Depending on how big they are and how you the terrariums are set up, to lower the CO2 in one you could put a cheap aquarium air pump or a battery powered air pump for bait in it then loop the discharge back into it.

October 4, 2014 3:45 pm

For skeptics who hold public presentations or produce content, there is a new tool for presentations that Microsoft is developing called Sway that may be an enhanced alternative to power point slides. I’ve only briefly looked at a quick video of this, but it looks like it has potential:

October 4, 2014 3:56 pm

“The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” ~ George Orwell
For some reason, the thought of the CO2 alarmism of the last 3 decades reminds me of that Orwell quote.

October 4, 2014 4:13 pm

Dear Mr. Watts,
I too am concerned and hope your pressing major life issues are happily resolved. We all so value you and all you’ve done.

Reply to  mike
October 5, 2014 2:27 am

I second that totally. I prayed for you in church this morning. You and your work are very special. Annie.

John Boles
October 4, 2014 5:18 pm

I do not care if a person is a lefty or a righty, but what bothers me is warmists who are hypocritical, by that I mean that they have kids, drive cars, heat and cool their homes, use electricity, etc. just as much as us skeptics. They seem to take an elitist position and want the dirty masses to make sacrifices, but not themselves. AND IT DRIVES ME NUTS! That is what we should have been asking people at the NYC climate march, do you have kids, how did you get to the march (fly?), do you heat your home (if from the north) or cool it (if from the south), do you drive a car. Make them see their own hypocrisy.

Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 6:15 pm

It is a mental illness john Boles. They project onto others (us) all of their failings and guilt. “We are oil funded shills. We are too wealthy and consume too much. We are greedy, evil people. Etc. Etc.” While in reality, they are protesting themselves, their cognitive dissonance is extremely painful. That is why they are so angry.
A better approach would be to cordon a section of the country off and let them live there, naked in their garden of Eden. Think Burning Man without any vehicles.

Reply to  John Boles
October 4, 2014 8:04 pm

The whole climate farce is the ideal home of the Leftists: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftism2.html

Peter Fraser
October 4, 2014 5:53 pm

A George Orwell quote I have always liked: “Only an expert would say such a thing, no ordinary man would be such a fool.” I read it many years ago and the quote may not be word perfect. If such is the case my apology to Mr Orwell

Reply to  Peter Fraser
October 4, 2014 7:41 pm

He didn’t say “expert,” he said “intellectual.”

Reply to  Peter Fraser
October 5, 2014 6:08 am

“Head on the clouds, feet on the earth” is a phrase that explains an approach to living. Unfortunately intelluctuals often have an issue with the feet on the ground part.

Sam Martin
October 4, 2014 6:40 pm

A challenge to proponents of significant intervention in order to mitigate significant anthropogenic global warming (I suggest we challenge everyone we can with this.)
The question: “Hypothetically speaking, would you support the intervention you propose despite a scenario where it became apparent that feedbacks had been erroneously calculated and as a result global warming was of a minor and non threatening magnitude?”
If the answer is yes then that person needs to stop hiding behind the science is settled argument and come clean (maybe wake up to the fact) that they are ideologically driven.
There are couple of good reasons someone might be ideologically driven. 1. I think there is strong confusion regarding co2 as a pollutant. Co2 is only a pollutant if global warming theories are correct- otherwise it is a fertilizer. Co2 is not smog or soot. Breath out- that is 40% co2. Co2 is non toxic- I can do cpr with co2 or I can breathe it out if a paper bag if hyperventilating. Watch the exhaust from a plane- that is smog (and some co2 you can’t see)
2. The world would be better off anyway with clean energy. Everyone would agree this is true – at the right price for the right trade offs. An example of a current trade off is “do we spend a billion dollars a day to mitigate climate change that might not (probably not?) happen or do we spend a billion dollars a day to feed the poorest billion people on earth to whom it would make a huge difference?” Proponents of costly interventions need to at least acknowledge this trade off.
3. Personal gain – we won’t be able to engage those people.

Reply to  Sam Martin
October 4, 2014 7:41 pm

Please, take a deep breath and find out about CO2.
The idea that you breath out 40% CO2 is absurd.
The end tidal CO2 (concentration of CO2 in the air at the very end of you breathing out) is 5 to 6%.
Your idea that CO2 is non toxic is equally absurd. Try breathing 15% CO2 and see what will happen to you.
We all know that CO2 is a fertilizer from our school days (a while ago for me) with the following equation on the blackboard in our classroom:
CO2 + H2O + Energy from the sun + a few other things in the soil = FOOD also = FORESTATION.
I know, my youngest daughter is a high school science teacher, no blackboard in her modern classroom! Sorry for the students, they will have to find the equation on the Internet.

Anything is possible
Reply to  rd50
October 4, 2014 8:37 pm

“Try breathing 15% CO2 and see what will happen to you.”
Now try breathing 0.015% CO2, and see what happens to YOU.
And FYI, the current level of atmospheric CO2 (0.04%) is a lot closer to 0.015% than it is to 15%.

Sam Martin
Reply to  rd50
October 4, 2014 9:12 pm

@rd Ahh oops quite right 40 mmhg= 5% co2. Thanks for the correction of my error.
Anyway the point is there is plenty of it in our breath. Sure I imagine it is “toxic” in high concentrations. Oxygen or water are toxic if you have enough. Cyanide however is toxic if you have very little. These are different concepts.
Ps nice use of non threatening language eg “absurd”-
Why can’t people be civil? Is it so hard? You will win many more arguments with polite language.

Reply to  rd50
October 4, 2014 9:19 pm

For some reason” Anything is possible “is replying to me below, but the usual “Reply” at the bottom of the post is missing. So I will just reply here.
The claim is made by Sam Martin that he exhales 40% CO2. This is absurd. He also claims that CO2 is not toxic. Since he claims that he exhales 40% CO2, how would inhaling 15% be toxic to him?
The “Anything is possible” person ignores the fact that exhaling 40% CO2 is absurd.
I know how much CO2 there is in the air, no need to remind me, not anywhere close to 15%. But since Sam Martin claims that he exhales 40% CO2 and that CO2 is non toxic, I simply asked him to try inhaling 15% CO2. Obviously, according to Sam Martin, nothing should happen to him. Just try it and then let me know. 15% is much lower than the 40% he claimed to exhaled. So, nothing should happen to him at 15%.
So, “Anything is possible”, just read again, a)Sam Martin is exhaling 40% CO2 with each breath and b)claims that CO2 is non toxic. Do you believe this? Let me know, Yes or No for a) and b).

Anything is possible
Reply to  rd50
October 4, 2014 9:49 pm

I was responding to your post, not Sam Martin’s.
Sam has posted an eloquent response to the points you raised. You want to try and do the same with the point I raised?

Reply to  rd50
October 4, 2014 10:14 pm

@ Sam Martin…Not sure since I am new here but I think this is the way to reply to you.
I certainly did not want to be rude to you by using “absurd” and certainly had no intention of winning any argument.
Simply, as you wrote in your reply, 40% was just an honest mistake. The problem on the Internet is that if nobody “shoots your honest mistake down” you will then quoted, so now 40% CO2 exhaled is it, since you said it. So, glad the correction was now made by you. Much better than being made by me and everybody (I hope) will understand.
So now, indeed oxygen is toxic. Try hyperbaric chamber, not so good if pressure is too high. Even just 100% O2 at normal atmospheric pressure resulted in blindness (toxicity to the cornea) in newborn infants in incubators, we were trying to help them. We learned not to do this anymore.
The same with H2O. Mentally imbalanced individuals have gone on a H2O “drinking binge” resulting in severe convulsions and even death.
As for cyanide, strangely enough, it is not “that toxic” (it takes quite a bit of it to kill). What the big deal is with cyanide is that once you reach the amount needed to kill, it kills extremely fast.
In any event, I understand your post. You want the right thing to be done and it is not easy to do.

Reply to  rd50
October 5, 2014 6:22 am

“Your idea that CO2 is non toxic is equally absurd. Try breathing 15% CO2 and see what will happen to you.”
Try breathing water, and see what happens to you. Is water toxic? Try eating a pound of salt, see what will happen to you. Is salt toxic? I am afraid it is you who are being absurd.
Almost anything is harmful in a high enough concentration or if used not for the purpose it was intended, but that does not mean it is toxic. Poisons are toxic because they are not edible in any dosage that will not cause harm. Topical treatments are helpful for use outside the body but may be poisonous if taken internally.
Sorry but saying CO2 is a toxin is ridiculous Joseph Goebbels type propaganda of the worst sort.

Gunga Din
Reply to  rd50
October 5, 2014 12:31 pm

Something to consider isn’t so much what the percentage of CO2 is before it becomes harmful but rather what the remaining percentage is composed of.
Any gas that displacing the O2 in a confined space can kill. Not the gas itself, the lack of O2.
The atmosphere is hardly a confined space. (Technically, yes. Practically, no.)
The warmist and the EPA don’t call CO2 a pollutant because it is toxic but because of the unobserved and unproven effect they say the CO2 produced by Man is having on the temperature of the planet.

Reply to  rd50
October 5, 2014 1:15 pm

Calling CO2 a toxic gas when discussing global warming caused by the green house effect makes those who use that line of argument look a bit ridiculous.

October 4, 2014 6:47 pm

All the best Anthony!
If we can help, we will!

October 4, 2014 7:24 pm

There is no such thing as “clean” energy, it all makes some kind of mess somewhere.

Reply to  nickreality65
October 4, 2014 8:10 pm

I agree.
Indeed, try to minimize the “poison” from each, so to speak, or “some kind of mess” as you wrote.
I am just wondering if we are not better using the variety: wind, solar, nuclear, coal, oil, methane so that we get a little bit of “poison” from each but not enough of each “poison”, from each source to create a disaster or even from the combination of the “poisons” from all sources to create a disaster.
One thing I never see proposed in the mix of alternatives to fossil fuels in the USA for “clean energy” is hydroelectric. I was at Hoover Dam a few months ago. Impressive, built in 4 years and under budget!

Grey Lensman
October 4, 2014 8:13 pm

I was gang attacked by rabid watermelons yesterday. Seems they are fearful that I use WUWT too much and that this wonderful site pays me. They were claiming that without humans the Earth would be in “Balance” and all would be stable and well.
So I posed this question for them, which sadly did not get them to think but sent them into a raging fury.
“If, without Humans, the Earth is in balance, how come 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct?”
It would seem not to be in Balance!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Grey Lensman
October 5, 2014 12:35 pm

They were claiming that without humans the Earth would be in “Balance” and all would be stable and well.

Did you ask them who would be around to notice or care?

October 4, 2014 8:23 pm

Here’s my favorite math question for those who strive to reduce their carbon footprints to save Gaia:
The current population of China is 1.3 billion and it is growing at roughly .5% net in population each year. The current population of India is 1.2 billion and it is growing at roughly 1.2% per year. An average person’s respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day (CO2#Human_physiology)
How many Americans must drive zero-emissions vehicles to offset the carbon footprint of the new Chinese and Indians born each year?
I never get a mathematical answer, for some reason. I am always told that “there are other reasons to drive zero emissions vehicles” and the subject somehow drifts away from carbon footprints.
NOTE (All my numbers here are quickly and lazily grabbed from the Internet but they are accurate enough for our purposes here)-

Richard M
Reply to  RCM
October 4, 2014 8:41 pm

The problem with arguments of this ilk is the carbon they are exhaling came from the food they ate which absorbed CO2 out of the atmosphere to grow. Hence it is carbon neutral (in theory, ignoring the use of carbon fuels to grow the food). The CO2 from vehicle emissions was sequestered CO2 in the form of fossil fuel.

Reply to  Richard M
October 5, 2014 3:55 am

And the carbon contained in fossil fuels comes from animals that died millions of years ago. Animals that ate plants or other animals. And those plants fixed CO2 out of the atmosphere to grow. So, in the long term, fossil fuels are also carbon neutral.

Reply to  Richard M
October 5, 2014 1:07 pm

… and by definition every single vehicle that runs on oil is primarily “solar powered” as most of the organic material was created with solar energy and also the “nuclear powered” part where geothermal heat rearranges all those molecules and don’t forget that renewable “gravity powered” part as the mass of the Earth provides the pressures needed for the underground “refinery.” Oil and coal are 100% naturally produced biofuels without the subsidies and engines destroyed by ethanol. Try running that one by your average tree hugger or Climateer… they make all kinds of funny noises and stamp their feet and then usually insult your intelligence and parentage. It’s really fun to watch them squirm when presented with facts.

A Crooks of Adelaide
October 4, 2014 9:37 pm

I’ve just been looking at Hockey Schtick site and they have an article on excuse number 59 for the Pause, from “Its a travesty” Trenberth. Something about ocean oscillations again. what ever.
I did notice this though in the conclusion.
“Some of these aspects appear to be unique to the past decade and raise questions about whether natural internal variability itself is being altered by climate change.”
Who would have believed it. Climate Change is altering Climate Change. Never saw that one coming.
I wondered if what he was talking about was just a negative feedback loop.

Reply to  A Crooks of Adelaide
October 5, 2014 4:29 am

Don’t be surprised if you hear an esxuse in the near future in the lines like;
“Some country like China or India has been using some kind of weather machine that has been imposing a cooling for about a decade now and suppressing the AGW.
The warmistas are desperate to the max by now.
The scientific AGW approach to the climate issue was simple, a 0.8C warming of the last century in the top of the previous 0.2C to 0.3C was a lot more than it could be explained [@ about X2 factor] under the normal regular natural climatic variations known, either the short term or the long term.
The only “smoking gun” that could be seen or identified was the CO2 emissions, which were a lot more than the naturally expected.
Now they face a paradox, while it could be explained under the AGW the anomaly of a possitive feed in the system at about 0.6C excess, the negative feed shown by the discrepancy between the model projections and the real climate is already engaged at about -0.9C [at least] with an unexplainable excess of about -0.5 to -0.6C.
Is impossible to claim that CO2 emissions have something to do with it, unless the AGW is first trashed…
There is no any other “smoking gun” to pin this at.
This negative feed is even more disturbing than the possitive feed of the last century because the force behind it seems to be as twice of that behind the warming of the last century.
The force causing a +0.8C feed on top of an already 0.3C warming is at least half of the force needed to cause a -0.8C feed in a warming trend of about 1.0C.

Reply to  whiten
October 5, 2014 8:06 am

This would be the Green Helicopter conspiracy ?
To be run in parallel with the Black Helicopter one?
I like it, almost as logical as claiming CO2 emissions from the Eastern countries causes cooling.
In opposition to Western CO2.
The Magic Gas has no limits… cause its magic?
I could demonstrate such a correlation from the rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the flatline to falling “Average Global Temperature”.
By the IPCC’s own metric and methods it follows that we must turn China into a preindustrial state, or face an ice age.
Long past time we tarred and feathered all involved in promoting CAGW.
One benefit of the relentless propaganda in our schools, child abuse really, is that the coming downturn in temperatures will drive the true lesson home to todays young adults.
The university of Hard Knocks teaches never trust a bureaucrat.Your interests are not shared.
The relationship of host and parasite is rarely symbiotic.
Never in a “progressive” society.
The child of erroneous modelling, The Pause is 18, todays adolescents have been sold an imaginary hobgoblin and they are becoming aware.
There is no “pause” in my opinion we are simply passing by the positive crest of a cycle, with each passing year we will see an accelerating rate of change as the cycle heads for the negative peak.
So seems the lesson of our short history of recording weather.

Reply to  whiten
October 5, 2014 1:36 pm

in re john robertson…

“Long past time we tarred and feathered all involved in promoting CAGW.”

Let’s be “green” about this now. Tarring requires the use of evil fossil fuel leftovers and should not be considered as a valid approach to “natural” punishment. I would recommend the use of honey instead of tar. The honey may be boiled first in order to maintain the 2nd and 3rd degree burns consistent with the old fashioned tarring but there is a nice twist here. After the honey and feathering drop the “contestant” into the Arctic… surrounded by Polar Bears. A true CAGW believer would have no fear ’cause all the bears should have been extinct due to global warming. Punishment with the bonus of a honey treat for the bears… what could be “greener.”

mark from socal
October 4, 2014 9:41 pm

What a good time I had watching college football being played today in the midwest. Notre Dame game was cold and rainy, so was Nebraska and Mich St and all the other games played in that region today. It was a pretty impressive example of global warming in action. Didn’t I see Chicago got snow? Do I need a sarc tag? Or has it just become Obvious that Climate Inc has failed?

Patrick Maher
Reply to  mark from socal
October 5, 2014 2:02 am

Yes, the rest of the country got cold wet weather but here in southern California is was near 100 degrees. Proof that the earth is warming I was told by an “expert.”
What about the cold weather everywhere else I asked? I pointed out that Southern Cal is not global.
It caused that too. was her learned reply
I then asked if she supported the consensus.
Of course, she sneered
Precisely what is the consensus I asked. Quantify the amount of warming the consensus says is caused by man
Look it up for yourself. she bellowed, losing patience.
I already did. I said. You don’t know do you? I inquired. How can you support something you don’t even understand?
with a smug look of condescension she muttered F— O–as she quickly left the premises.
A notice appeared on her facebook page about two hours later stating that she had schooled a denier and put him in his place.
my friend had videoed the entire exchange on her iphone. I politely asked if the expert wanted me to post it on her facebook so that her friends could see how she put me in my place.
She immediately unfriended me and blocked my posts.
I found out later that several friends posted the video and now, 6 hours later, the expert has a much smaller following. she sent me a nasty text and said rude things
last time I try to do a favor for an expert

Reply to  Patrick Maher
October 5, 2014 1:44 pm

The eco-loons were much more fun when all they did was smoke hash, try to convince us that planetary alignments ruled us, preached that crystals healed themselves and would also fix our lives if we let them. Now that they’ve got a taste of government power and money they get nasty and cranky at the least little thing that threatens their paradigm. Who thought I’d ever miss the 60’s…

Jay Hope
Reply to  Patrick Maher
October 5, 2014 2:36 pm

They become quite nasty when you try to suggest there is no GW. I was talking to my usually mild mannered physic tutor the other day, and for some reason she mentioned GW. I simply replied that I didn’t think the climate had heated up much, and that there was a good chance we were going to see cooler weather in the future. . She went red in the face, started stamping her foot and began to swear, and muttering ‘we’ve got to stop them’. After about five minutes, she calmed down and apologised to me.
As a ‘denier’ I am now expecting her to give me very low grades in my tests! These people are worse than the Inquisition.

October 4, 2014 9:44 pm

Genghis October 4, 2014 at 5:30 pm
davidmhoffer “Changes in CO2 concentration do cause some energy to be “trapped” but it is an amount that is so small that it can be effectively rounded off to zero, and it would only exist in between equilibrium states. At equilibrium, the amount of energy escaping into space is exactly the same after CO2 doubles as it is before.”
Three problems with your ‘explanation’, 3.6 watts is not zero and the system never reaches equilibrium. Most importantly though the ‘greenhouse’ effect primarily takes place in the ocean which absorbs SW radiation and emits LW radiation. Most of the atmospheric LW radiation is reflected, like the internals of a LASERs gain medium.
1. 3.6 watts which you quote should be 3.7 watts/m2, get your numbers correct. Secondly, that’s the change in radiative forcing at a given point in the atmosphere defined in one of the AR reports (3 I think). Radiative forcing and heat trapping are two completely different things. The only heat “trapped”by CO2 is related to the heat capacity of the “extra” CO2, which at 280 ppm is a rounding error approaching zero. If I am wrong, then so is Stefan-Boltzmann Law and all the physics that followed it.
2. The system absolutely reaches equilibrium provided that you consider it over a sufficient time period. But the original question was in regard to the theory, and from a strictly theoretical perspective, it is absolutely correct to compare equilibrium states.
3. Land absorbs SW and emits LW just as the oceans do.

george e. smith
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 4, 2014 11:28 pm

CO2 does not trap “heat”. We should be so lucky, as to have a material that can trap heat. You could make your fortune selling it.
CO2 (temporarily) captures some quite narrow bands made up of even narrower spectral lines, in the total thermal radiation emitted from mostly the earth surface, and it very quickly disgorges itself of that radiant energy (photon) usually as a result of colliding with another molecule (of any sort). So that restores the CO2 molecule to pretty much its original state, with a widely varying kinetic energy, that it constantly interchanges with other molecules in collision.
But an important change occurs in that transaction. The original absorbed radiant energy, had been proceeding away from the surface, towards the freedom of outer space, but once captured by the CO2, it is re-emitted travelling in any random direction, (isotropic distribution), so now only half of it is headed towards space, and escape. So this slows down the escape process. During that delay, the sun keeps adding more energy, which mostly ends up on earth (in the oceans and rocks), so that increases the surface Temperature, which will in turn increase, the rate of radiant energy emission in a thermal emission spectrum; some of which, CO2, will be able to capture (temporarily).
The atmosphere itself does not actually have to be heated at all in this process. But of course it is heated by direct conduction from the hotter surface. The capture and release process, is why the absorption process does NOT obey Bouguer’s Law, (sometimes inaccurately called “Lambert’s Law”).
“Equal layers, will absorb equal fractions of each kind of energy entering them.” Remember in 1729, not a lot was known about “each kind of energy.”
Beer’s law is a similar law fin chemistry, for liquid dilute solutions of absorbing molecules. Either of them only apply to the simple case of a one dimensional beam passing through the medium, which does NOT reradiate.
Absorbing media, which re-radiate isotropically, DONOT obey any of the one dimensional energy absorption laws. And that includes earth’s atmosphere.
Some time back, Phil posted a paper which computes an absorption profile, that is linear for low concentration of absorbing molecules, then transitions by some mathematical magic to logarithmic, at higher concentrations, and finally becomes square root for the highest concentrations.
Unfortunately, that analysis is only valid for one dimensional propagation, of the original radiation through the medium, which must be non radiating, so it simply does not apply to atmospheric absorption by GHGs.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 12:38 am

I try (but often fail) at expressing this concept so clearly george e. smith.
Thank you, George as well as davidmhoffer for your interesting posts here today.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 1:58 am

I’m ok ish with your 2nd and 3rd paragraph. You confuse me with your switch from kinetic energy to conduction after that (should be the same thing in a gas). You lost me after that.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 2:03 am

Thanks for your replies it makes sense, but I’m unsure about this bit
“The original absorbed radiant energy, had been proceeding away from the surface, towards the freedom of outer space, but once captured by the CO2, it is re-emitted travelling in any random direction, (isotropic distribution), so now only half of it is headed towards space, and escape. So this slows down the escape process. During that delay, the sun keeps adding more energy, which mostly ends up on earth (in the oceans and rocks), so that increases the surface Temperature, which will in turn increase, the rate of radiant energy emission in a thermal emission spectrum; some of which, CO2, will be able to capture (temporarily).”
So the sun doest heat the earth, it emits light radiation which gets absorbed into it making heat in the process. Heat doesn’t escape directly, it has to turn back in to radiation to be able to pass through the vacuum of space to escape (i think!)
Are these wavelengths of energy then different? entering and escaping the earth? so what I mean is, if the C02 temporally stops the exiting radiant energy why doesn’t the same additional C02 deflect some of the incoming energy? the same way its stops it temporarily leaving?
It also seems quite evident that there is no simple answer to any of these questions, this theory only works under these conditions…etc, but in reality how can all of these different factors be but in to a computer model and the outcome be relevant?

Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 2:47 am

“Heat doesn’t escape directly, it has to turn back in to radiation to be able to pass through the vacuum of space to escape (i think!)”
Yes; and it still does so. George mentioned the thermalization process of IR photons but at the same time there is also dethermalization ongoing, the exact opposite.
Which one of these processes dominates depends on the mean free path length of the photon, i.e. on the atmospheric density and the partial pressure of the greenhouse gases.
So above a certain height, CO2 and other triatomic gases serve as coolants, as even NASA admits, whose business it normally is to earn 1.2 billion USD in tax payer money to prove Global Warming, for instance in Gavin Schmids GISS institute.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 3:02 am

…1.2 billion USD per year of course.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 2:11 pm

Well I’m not sure exactly how Alex ran off the rails, there. I was questioning the common assumption, that GHG absorptions “heat”(verb) the atmosphere. Frankly, I don’t know if they do or not, but I lean towards not. >>BUT << !! it's quite clear that they do impede the escape of thermal (BB like) radiation from the solid/liquid surface, because of the resonant absorptions in the well known bands (of fine spectral lines). That physics is rather irrefutable. You do not want to die on a hill claiming that GHGs don't do anything. I don't think they do anything bad. But they certainly do something.
Analog circuit designers; IR1 , understand that if you apply a step voltage to a resistor ( R) in series with a capacitor (C) (condenser !), the output voltage on the capacitor, starts to rise (from its initial zero) at an initial rate equal to V/RC volt per second, because you have an initial current V/R amp going into the capacitor. As the voltage rises, the current drops, so the charge rate slows down. If it didn't slow down, but stayed at V/R amp, the capacitor would fully charge up to V in a time RC seconds. So we call RC the time constant of that circuit. In reality, the voltage will only get to 63% (1-1/e) in that time. It will get to 95% in three time constants, and to 99% in five time constants.
Less well known is what happens if you apply a linear ramp of voltage (dV/dt) to that same circuit. Well the input voltage starts off at zero, so now the starting charge current is also zero, but now it is the current that is increasing, at an initial linear rate, and the current will eventually build up to a limiting value of CdV/dt amp per second, and it will take five time constants (5RC) to get to 99% of that final rate.
After that the output voltage on the capacitor, will be ramping up at exactly the same rate as the input, and the charge current will be constant at the value CdV/dt. This constant current flows in the resistor R, so the voltage drop across that resistor is now constant, at the value RC dv/dt. The output voltage across the capacitor is now rising at the same rate as the input ramp, but it is delayed in time by that time constant RC. Whatever voltage the input ramp is at, the output will get to that same voltage RC seconds later.
This is exactly the same process (in analogy) that happens on the earth where the sun is inputting radiant energy at a constant rate (more or less) similar to the constant current that was flowing into our capacitor. Well it could be water running into the bathtub, couldn't it.
The delay in the escape of radiant energy to space (by GHG temporary capture), causes the Temperature, to offset at a higher static value, than it would have if the escape wasn't delayed by the GHGs. Eventually the Temperature stops rising, but at a small increment over the value it would have sans delay.
You don't have to assume, that the Atmosphere is warming at all, in this process. The excess energy is being lost at the necessary rate, to match the average solar input rate, but it takes a higher thermal radiating surface Temperature to maintain that loss rate.
I think it is a great disservice that we do to our Physics, and indeed all science students, that we teach them that Electro-magnetic radiant energy is "HEAT" (noun). It is NOT. Coal is NOT heat, nor is oil and natural gas. But we can get heating (verb) from any of those things. Temperature is a unique macro property of thermal systems, where millions of molecules are actively in mechanical collisions with each other, which could be a destruction derby process, as in gases, or it could be a shoulder shoving, while trying to rush into the ball park, with wall to wall people.
You need many molecules to have a Temperature, but a photon can be captured by just a single molecule unaided by human hand or anything else. EM radiation can be turned into "heat" with 100% efficiency, but we can't turn the heat back into radiant energy anywhere near 100%.
Some will still insist that radiation is heat; well maybe it is light, or radio, or TV or X-rays
Well it is not heat, and it is not light either. Light is all in your head. Your brain makes it up when your eye is stimulated by just a single octave of EM radiant energy from about 0.4 to 0.8 micron wavelength. That also corresponds to a range of photon energy from about 1.5 down to 0.75 electron-volt of energy.
So is a 1.5 eV photon heat, or is it light. What happens when it changes from one to the other. If 750 nm is heat, is 749 nm light or is it still heat.
Now I know that red "light" radiant energy, is about 2.0 electron-volt, that's close to the He-Ne red laser at 632.8 nm wavelength.
I also happen to know to eight significant digits, what is the wavelength of the red Cadmium line, that Michelson used to measure the meter bar. It is 6438.4696 Angstrom units. (look it up). I don't need to because in my day, everybody knew that, even some stranger down at the pub.
So if some folks, still think EM radiation is heat; is it ALL heat; or is some of it television or x-rays.
So maybe you could give me to eight significant digits, what is the starting and ending points in the EM spectrum, that defines what is heat, and what is not heat.
In my book, NONE of it is "heat" (noun), but ALL of it, can be used to "heat" (verb) something else.
Even the microwave 2.77 K background radiation can be used to "heat" (verb) a block of frozen Helium.
So can X-rays.
Not only is "light" not EM radiation, it isn't even energy.
The following formal definition of "light", is given by the commission on colorimetry, of the Optical Society of America; one of the founding organizations of the American Institute of Physics.
"Light is the (psychophysical) aspect of radiant energy of which a human observer is aware through the visual sensations which arise from the stimulation of the retina of the (human) eye. "
That's a direct quote (sans the () words) from the "Science of Color", a classic text book published by that entity.
But we Physikers get lazy, and use heat and light colloquially , although we understand what we really mean, but we confuse the lay reader by doing that.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 2:25 pm

The problem with your explanation, as good as it is, is that it still relies on the fallacy that CO2, or any other gas at normal atmospheric pressures, actually has the time to drop all the way to ground state and radiate a photon. The molecules are far too close together for this to happen until you get up into the far upper atmosphere where the collision (convection) rate drops low enough that the molecule has the time to emit. There is radiation from solid matter at the surface that’s been warmed and there is absorption of some of that radiation by the atmosphere but most of the heat transfer going on is via convection, mechanical heat transfer. That keeps going until that energy, careening from molecule to molecule gets high enough in the thinning atmosphere that LWIR can be emitted out to the 3°K of space.
Your description makes it sound like CO2 is the only thing absorbing radiant energy from the heated planet. Due to it’s lower gas constant, it’s actually poorer than air as a whole at transferring heat. Every single gas and vapor in the atmosphere absorbs that energy as well. That’s what atmospheres do.
If the incorrectly named “greenhouse” gases actually emitted radiation in the atmosphere things like FLIR, thermal cameras and thermal sights would not work. All of CO2’s emission lines and most of water vapor’s lines are inside the wavelengths used by these devices. If that radiation (or the fictional “back radiation”) was actually happening all you could see would be fog from atmospheric heat radiated hither, thither and yon (all directions.) It would be like the inside of an integrating sphere. That doesn’t happen. Those devices can see thousands of meters, day or night, clear as a bell.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
October 5, 2014 8:27 pm

October 5, 2014 at 2:25 pm
The problem with your explanation, as good as it is, is that it still relies on the fallacy that CO2, or any other gas at normal atmospheric pressures, actually has the time to drop all the way to ground state and radiate a photon. …..”””””
Well you are doing a lot of relying, on this or that. I am not.
I mentioned only CO2 in my first post, because somebody else specifically said that CO2 “Trapped” radiation. It was that point I was addressing. My failure to include a lengthy comment, naming each and every GHG by name, and describing its important actions, would take up all of Anthony’s bandwidth.
Your assumption that that was all I considered is just that; your assumption.
And the reason that CO2 or any other GHG does not get time to spontaneously revert to the ground state or another lower state, after its typical lifetime, is because that excited state is brutally terminated, when the molecule gets clobbered by another molecule due to the gas temperature.
If the Black Swan is in the middle of doing her 32 fouettes, en tournant , and the prince knocks her on her keister, she is not going to continue with what she was doing.
Neither do excited molecules engaging in some resonant oscillation mode. The collision prematurely terminates the performance, and the result is that the line-width of the subsequent emission (of a photon) undergoes a collision broadening, as explained by Heisenberg’s principle. dEdt > h (or hbar, depending on your units).
Phil has related on numerous occasions, that you only get spontaneous emission from CO2 or other GHGs in the rarified atmosphere of the stratosphere, where the mean time between molecular collisions is greater than the lifetime of the excited state. Those emissions have lower line widths, also because of the lower Temperature, and Doppler broadening.
Somebody else metioned CO2 “trapping” ; not me.

October 4, 2014 11:53 pm

I happened upon an interesting reference to Gibbon and self-illusion and fraud. Google finds the full quote in several Google Books about “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Edward Gibbon. Gibbon wrote:

From enthusiasm to imposture, the step is perilous and slippery: the demon of Socrates affords a memorable instance, how a wise man may deceive himself, how a good man may deceive others, how the conscience may slumber in a mixed and middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud.

October 5, 2014 12:42 am

The Cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson
To be clear, it isn’t Tyson’s science that is the point of contention here. Who doesn’t want to listen to him talk about supernovas and the large magellanic cloud?
The problem is the belief of his fans—encouraged by him—that science has all the answers; that anyone who believes in physics must adhere to a progressive secularism; that anyone not on board is—to borrow from the accusations of Tyson’s defenders—guilty of anti-intellectualism, climate “denial” and racism.

Reply to  brent
October 5, 2014 2:01 am

He lost me when he decided to be a warmist. Every conclusion he draws now , I regard with suspicion.

Reply to  brent
October 5, 2014 2:40 pm

Sometimes ignorance is bliss :: )
I ‘m an old f@rt who stopped watching TV about 10 years ago. Haven’t missed it at all.
It’s universally unspeakable trash. I think Aldous Huxley’s plan to entertain us to death with trivia and misinformation has been successful. : (
So I was never infected by the Tyson cult. Nor for that matter with other fad followings such as Dawkins and Lovelock et al

October 5, 2014 12:46 am

Scientists to ‘fast-track’ evidence linking extreme weather to climate change in sign of panic that they’re losing propaganda battle to the sceptics
Environmental scientists want to introduce a new system to prove that adverse weather events are directly linked to climate change to counter global warming sceptics.
Under the new plan, a heatwave or major storm will be linked scientifically to man made climate change immediately after the event to prevent critics from blaming it on natural variations in the weather.
Scientists want to be able to provide proof of whether an event was caused by climate change within three day rather than the current system which can take up to a year.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  brent
October 5, 2014 2:58 am

Perhaps their title ought to read ‘losing propaganda battle due to skeptics FACTS’

Reply to  brent
October 5, 2014 5:12 am

Another data point showing trolls have overtaken the climate science insitutions.

Reply to  brent
October 5, 2014 7:03 am

This is an interesting item. I don´t see why they can´t fast track everything into a two minute process. The way I see it they can have everything pre and post processed, and the news releases ready to be issued before the weather event takes place. This gives me an idea for a new business line I could try.

October 5, 2014 3:32 am

I had not considered doing a post for a site other than my own before reading this call for submissions. With this post I read all the rules for submission and also re-read the site policy.
I have posted a few essays on climate at my site over the years, but those were digressions from my normal topics. So no one will miss me not doing a post for WUWT.
The problem I have is that it looks like I would not be able to cross post to my own tiny, back-water site as WUWT would own my essay. It also looks like I would not be able to mention anything on a whole list of banned items. Modern physics and other branches of science are moving on past the late 20th century textbook science and it seems one could not mention these things. (I would never do an essay on one of them as I am not qualified to do so but I might mention one of them) Besides, only in the summer do I have time to do any long essays that required research and citations.
I am always interested in those data points that don’t fit the current consensus in any branch of human knowledge. It is though those inconvenient facts that we test our present understanding. It was the small inconsistencies that told us that the planets did not revolve around the earth. It was inconvenient facts that informed a German patent clerk that physics needed a re-working.
I like these “open threads” which allow “off-topic” bs like the above comments. WUWT should do more of them — and should allow a bit more freedom to mention things without fear of being snipped or even banned. For example, it was though a rant by our host at someone that I first heard of those people we are never to mention here. (they do “way out there” stuff)
If any poor soul has read all the way down to this line (and may God pity you!), I hope you know that all of the above is just one man’s opinion. I was trained in science back when open debate was the golden rule and no science was ever said to be “settled”. (one has so much trouble overcoming his early training)

Reply to  markstoval
October 5, 2014 6:49 am

I have been considering posting something for some time now. I didn’t realise there were conditions to posting. Maybe I should post something really bland that no-one will disagree with (particularly the management). You have kinda put me off it now. On second thoughts, I might try to put some basic stuff through.

Reply to  markstoval
October 5, 2014 9:30 am

“[Stories] that are published […] become to property of WUWT.” Typo ‘to’ instead of ‘the’. IANAL, shouldn’t ‘property’ really be expressed as copyright? Which is standard practice. It does not expressly say you cannot also use it on your own blog and I doubt that would offend WUWT.
The banned topics are banned for a reason. Those discussions are usually a waste of time. Did you have something new to say about them?

Reply to  Toto
October 5, 2014 11:30 am

“Did you have something new to say about them?”
There is nothing new under the sun they say. But I would not write if I were not allowed to mention anything I wanted to mention. After all, not everyone thinks the current “consensus” on how our atmosphere works to distribute heat is correct. I saw an exchange just today (the exchange was not today, I saw it today) between the commenter here, Dr. Brown, and one of his ex-colleagues concerning how CO2 worked in the atmosphere. Apparently, the rules state I could not tell you what they said to each other. That, my friend, is a sad thing. (keep in mind they seem to highly respect each other and the exchange was very cordial)
I guess I am just not much of a fan of banned topics. (but I do understand a man doing as he pleases with his own blog)

Reply to  markstoval
October 5, 2014 3:35 pm

It’s been my experience that when posting comments on blogs operated and paid for by their hosts (especially the popular ones) that common courtesy, civil discourse and an honest presentation of the facts that support your position go a long way. If you are really worried about the legalese… do yourself a favor and do NOT read the license that came with your computer or the software that is running it. You certainly don’t want to read the 80,000 pages of federal laws, rules and regulations you are supposed to follow either… We are a society that uses rules to keep our interactions civil, if the rules someplace are not to your liking… don’t go there. I no longer read sites that have either been rude to me, censored me, or edited my comments. I have no problems with a comment I post on a site to be moderated before being displayed… I would do the same at my own site until I trusted the individual that was posting there (had I the time to manage a site.)
This is Anthony’s blog. It is his house or back yard or whatever else you wish to call it. He is open enough to allow people to comment on his thoughts and research and to invite others to put their thoughts and research here as well. I find that if you respect your host, you get the same in return.

Reply to  nielszoo
October 6, 2014 11:30 am

I pointed out that anyone who runs a blog may have any rules they choose to have. I also pointed out that I will not be submitting content since I feel the rules too restrictive for essays here. Nothing in your post contradicts my original posting or follow-up. And no, I don’t have a “problem” — I just will not tender an essay as long as it means I can’t mention the latest results and debates in science. (physics especially) As I stated so plainly — this should be no great loss to anyone.

October 5, 2014 3:47 am

“Environmental scientists want to introduce a new system to prove that adverse weather events are directly linked to climate change to counter global warming skeptics.”
That would be hard to do seeing as how the opposite is what the data shows. Here in Florida we have experienced 9 years without a hurricane as CO2 has risen to the “evil” 400 ppm level. Tornadoes are less than in past times. Steve Goddard has done a whole series of posts using government data (warmist tainted though it may be) showing that “warming” (if there be such) looks to be a good thing as it mitigates adverse weather.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  markstoval
October 5, 2014 4:31 am

But, don’t you see the flaw in your logic?
The absence of an ‘adverse’ weather event is, in itself, an ‘adverse’ weather event. Thus, environmental scientists can’t lose. /sarc
I’ve still never seen an operational definition of what exactly constitutes an ‘adverse’ or ‘extreme’ weather event that would allow actually testing for it. Actually I’ve never seen an operational definition of what ‘normal’ weather events are either. All very convenient for the proponents of the hypothesis because it gives them the ability to simply name whatever ‘event’ occurs (say you get 1.5″ of rain in a month when the average is 1″) as ‘extreme’ and the hypothesis cannot be falsified.

October 5, 2014 4:26 am

Questions for ghe guys discussing atmospheric heat transfer and CO2 radiation:
How did the atmosphere cooled down so much in 1999 after the 1998 super niño?
Did CO2 radiated more energy than usual towards outer space?
Why didn’t the heat stay in the atmosphere?
I can undertand how the atmopshere heated up so much in 1998 but don’t get why it cooled down so much and so fast in 1999.

Reply to  urederra
October 5, 2014 6:58 am

Solids , liquids, gas and magic

Reply to  urederra
October 5, 2014 7:31 am

Urederra: The postulated excess energy is about 0.5 watts per meter squared. When this amount of energy is used to warm the top 100 meters of the ocean for a whole year the temperature increases 0.04 degrees Centigrade. The temperature swing was several tenths of a degree C. Therefore the difference from year to year has to be caused by heat exchange between the surface and the ocean (and this extends beyond the top 100 meters). In practical terms, slightly cooler water came to the surface and cooled the atmosphere and the ocean surface a tiny amount. This may have been aided by some changes in cloud albedo and things like that, but from what i gather the biggest factor seems to be the ocean´s ability to absorb energy. This excludes volcano eruption effects.

Reply to  urederra
October 5, 2014 7:36 am

Sorry I was so flippant and I don’t mean to be condescending. You need to have some basic science and understanding of specific heat and latent heat. Radiative transfer won’t make any sense unless your ‘science’ level is higher. Most of the people on this blog have some basics. Unfortunately no-one really has enough information to give you a correct answer. The sceptics are happy that there has been a hiatus. The warmists are making excuses. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. You might learn something along the way, like I have.

Reply to  Alex
October 5, 2014 8:26 am

So Alex you have no idea either?

Reply to  urederra
October 5, 2014 9:07 am

I suggest you read Bob Tisdale’s blog or his many posts on this blog regarding ENSO.
Why didn’t the heat stay in the atmosphere?
Why would it? There was a temporary burst of energy into the atmosphere from ENSO so the temp went up, and when the burst of energy into the atmosphere dissipated, it cooled off. When you turn the burner on the stove off, you don’t expect the pot of water to stay hot, do you?

John Coleman
Reply to  urederra
October 5, 2014 10:25 am

The control of the atmosphere by the ocean currents and surface temperature pattern was never, ever so obvious in 1998 to 1999. The most powerful El Nino in modern history peaked in 1998 and ended abruptly at the start of 1999. The ocean currents caused the wind that in turn caused the El Nino, The El Nino controlled the pattern of the Jet Stream. The pattern of the Jet Stream caused the atmospheric warming. Wahla. 1998 was a year to remember. Any arguments?

John Coleman
Reply to  John Coleman
October 5, 2014 11:02 am

But wait a minute what caused the shift in the wind and ocean currents that set up the El Nino. That is the highly variable aspect of climate on Earth that results from
1. A constantly changing amount of energy arriving from the Sun
2. The less than spherical nature of Earth that changes the way that heat is absorbed
3. The wabble in the axis of the tilt of Earth
4. Constantly changing nature of the energy and particle arriving in the Solar system from elsewhere in the Galaxy
All of this a more leads to a more less random (remember random is not linear) constant change in the climate pattern of Earth. Of interest to me is the more measured than random major changes that lead to Ice Ages and Interglacials. Astrophysics will perhaps eventually produce an agreed to answer. In the meantime, strong events like the 1998 El Nino will occasionally produce huge temperature and precipitation spikes. And people like the chemtrails crowd and the global warming crowd will scream “the sky is falling” and tell us they know why. How silly of them.

Reply to  urederra
October 5, 2014 1:16 pm

urederra, part of the answer lies in how much more massive is the ocean than the atmosphere.
Heat capacity of ocean water: 3993 J/kg/deg K
Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/deg K
[from WUWT 4/6/2011 “Energy content, the heat is on: atmosphere -vs- ocean” – Jeff Id.]
the same energy to raise 1 kg of air 1.0 deg C will raise 1 kg of ocean about 0.25 deg C.
Add to that, the enormous differences in the masses of the atmosphere and the ocean.
atmosphere: 5×10^18 kg
ocean: 1.4×10^21 kg = 1,400 ×10^18 kg
so the ocean is 280 times more massive than the air.
Multiply that by its 4 times higher heat capacity
Then the energy to raise the atmosphere by 1 deg C will only raise the ocean temperature by 1/1120 deg or about 0.0009 deg C. We cannot measure a temperature change 10 times that big.
If somehow, you raise the temperature of the total atmosphere by 1 degree, and 1998 raised only a piece of the atmosphere by 0.6 deg above the 18 year mean (1.0 deg if you count peak to peak) Then the heat will eventually even out with the ocean, raising its temperature by 0.0009 deg C, an amount too small to measure.
That’s just part of the answer. A change of 0.1% of albedo during the daytime, a few more clouds, would reduce the energy received enough to cool off the atmosphere, too.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
October 5, 2014 2:04 pm

Tying up some concepts….
A great deal has been made that the heat is hiding deep in the oceans. As evidence they point to a chart of Ocean Heat Content in Levitus-2012 and -2009. [Ref is to Eschenbach, WUWT 4/23/12, “An Ocean of Overconfidence”]
The Levitus chart does not measure changes in temperature of the ocean, but change in the Ocean Heat Content measured in huge numbers like 9*10^22 Joules. That sounds like a lot! But you can demystify it by turning it into equivalent temperatures. The first step is to adopt a unit easier to work with.
1 ZJ = 1 zetaJoule = 1*10^21.
Using the heat capacity of the total oceans above, we can learn that it takes 56 ZJ to change the ocean temperature by 0.01 deg C.
The fault with Levitus is that take a poorly sampled, spatially bias, temporally undersampled dataset of pre-2003 temperature measurements and splice onto that a much better sampled ARGO. In Levitus, the pre-ARGO change in heat is 240 ZJ (1950-2003), which given the problems with sampling a number fraught with error and real un-sampled uncertainty. But just accepting it a meaningful, if you use the heat capacity of the upper 0-2000 m of ocean (27.5 ZJ per deg C) it amounts to a 0.09 deg C increase
Since Argo, Levitus says the OHC increase of the 0-2000 m layer, 2003-2010, is about 30 ZJ, or about 0.01 deg C, near the threshold of measurement accuracy.
Let us raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 deg C.
How many ZJ does it take? FIVE !
5 ZJ to raise the atmosphere 1 deg C.
5600 ZJ to raise the ocean 1 deg C.
The Global Warming Heat isn’t “hiding in the oceans”. It is dead and buried there.

October 5, 2014 4:46 am

Ebola Survivor Dr. Rick Sacra Admitted to Worcester Hospital
Massachusetts physician Dr. Rick Sacra, who had been successfully treated for Ebola, has been admitted to UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester Saturday night for signs of pneumonia, according to multiple reports.
Sacra, who lives in Holden, contracted the disease in August while working at an obstetrics clinic in Liberia. He was successfully treated at Nebraska Medical Center and released.
Sacra was taken to a Boston-area emergency room Saturday with a low-grade cough and a fever and was then transferred to UMass Memorial, NECN reported.
News of Sacra’s condition was released hours after the hospital confirmed that another patient is undergoing medical evaluation after showing possible signs of Ebola.

October 5, 2014 5:17 am

Urederra – As I observe in my thoughts linked below about the matter, the ocean/evaporation/clouds etc. moves/emits/absorbs heat in amounts hundreds of times greater than the CO2/air cycle. Heating & cooling of the ocean has much greater impact on the climate than CO2/radiative forcing/air.

October 5, 2014 7:22 am

Found the exact moment in time when crackpot climate modelers felt their power for the first time. 1984.

They wouldn’t ever let go of it.

Reply to  DirkH
October 5, 2014 7:23 am

Wrong link. Correction:

October 5, 2014 7:39 am

First ice on the boat cover, south of Milwaukee last night. Time to think about winterizing the boat.

Reply to  Scott
October 5, 2014 7:59 am

Northeast China has been a pain the last few days also. I really hate the cold.

Reply to  Alex
October 5, 2014 10:31 am

Go to Florida as a climate refugee ;o)

October 5, 2014 9:38 am

I have my pet theory’s about many things climate related. I could probably show many graphs and stuff that would prove nothing. Just like the IPCC. My 40 year life experience with scientific instrumentation tells me that people don’t know how to interpret results. People and instrumentation don’t mix. I’ve sold equipment worth thousands of dollars and the purchasers didn’t pay a blind bit of notice to what I said. [Snip] them, I thought, and just took their money, after all it was my job.
I have retired from that BS but people are still the same. I have spent the last 10 years teaching in a university. I have been involved with undergraduates, post graduates and even people going for their PhD’s. Lazy [snip], the lot of them. Don’t believe me? Just ask one if they could have done better, then stand back and listen to the excuses.
After my rant of denigrating others:
I don’t have a clue. Not enough accurate and unpolluted information.

October 5, 2014 10:02 am

‘The Premise of the Faithful’
Subtitled ‘Applied Mythology in the Climate Change Cause’
Coming soon to a blog near you.

October 5, 2014 11:02 am

I need an “illustrator” – or some one better than I at computer graphics – to turn my hand-sketches of the sun, solar elevations angles, air mass diagrams, ice and water albedo, and the the sun’s rays at different times of the year and different latitudes into meaningful, presentable images.
I need a series of images somewhat like Trenberth’s vertical radiation paths – but with actual very solar elevations and albedo values for the Arctic and Antarctic.
Thus, if the sun is shown at 4 degrees above the horizon (instead of 84 degrees), the air mass of 13 (instead of 1.0) is shown filtering the inbound radiation, the water albedo at 0.35 (instead of 0.06) the ice albedo at mid-summer’s 0.46 (instead of an idealized 0.85) the whole impression of the mythical “Arctic amplification is taken out of as a propaganda tool from the hands of our catastro-physicist-elite governments’ hands.
Any one with such a skill? Speak up. I will be able contact to contact you. (And the Koch brothers will, of course, provide all funding via their vast right-wing conspiracy of evil corporate bankers.)

Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 5, 2014 3:50 pm

Look over at The Peoples Cube as Oleg Atbashian who runs it is a commercial illustrator. I don’t know what his rates are, but the work I’ve seen is really good with the added bonus of his being a former propaganda artist in the old USSR. He goes by “Red Square” and there’s a contact link on the site. If that doesn’t work, just enjoy his site. There are some seriously creative people over there…

Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 6, 2014 2:24 am

Vector graphics, shading & text: sounds relatively simple. I’ll give it a go.
Send a sample to my gmail address, with “Bernadotte01” in front, symbol for “at” in the middle, and a dot com at the end.

October 5, 2014 12:07 pm

OK —
Here’s another reason that we should be concerned about greenhouse gasses.

Jake J
October 5, 2014 12:33 pm

Anyone here feel like commenting about this? I’m thinking of recommending it to friends who need to hear the skeptic case on climate change.

Reply to  Jake J
October 5, 2014 1:31 pm

It would be less open to ridicule if the mispronunciation of “buoy” , at the first occurrence of the word, was removed .
Do Canadians really say “booey”?

Reply to  farmerbraun
October 5, 2014 2:48 pm

Many Americans do, too.
Buoy and Buoyancy have different sounding “bouy”s. I think because buoyancy becomes bou-yan-cy.

Reply to  farmerbraun
October 5, 2014 10:41 pm

Do Brits really say “China rand India rah big countries”?

Mr Green Genes
Reply to  farmerbraun
October 6, 2014 2:11 am

mebbe – Sadly, many of my fellow countrymen do exactly that. It gets worse too – one of the most common solecisms is to erroneously mispronounce “th” as “f”.

Reply to  farmerbraun
October 6, 2014 9:25 am

Standard American pronunciation is close to “boo-ee”. We don’t say “boy” as in UK. However in American English the first syllable of the word “bouyancy” is indeed pronounced “boy”.

Jake J
Reply to  farmerbraun
October 6, 2014 10:54 am

I grew up in Wisconsin and we said “booey.” First few times I heard “boy” I didn’t know what they were talking about.

Reply to  Jake J
October 5, 2014 9:04 pm

I like the presentation. Nothing activated my BS meter but then again I’m biased. 13 minutes of data is too long to hold the interest of someone who’s biased to be a heat seeking missile programmed by the media and unable to interpret data on their own though.

Reply to  Jake J
October 6, 2014 8:31 am

It’s not 1.1 degree C for each doubling, just for that from ~280 to 560 ppm.

Gunga Din
October 5, 2014 12:58 pm

A question.
Has much or any effort been put into cataloging in a computer record of past weather conditions? It seems that meteorologist’s that have earned respect are those that recognize present conditions as being similar to a past condition and tailor their forecast accordingly.
It seems to me that a program that took present conditions and looked for a close match to past conditions would be of far greater value than the GAGW climate models.

Pamela Gray
October 5, 2014 1:07 pm

That Iceland volcano is doing some pretty strange things. Earthquakes are now occurring off shore and may be related to the main event. Plus the main event is shaking its belly in the caldera quite a bit. The caldera continues to sink at a fairly steady rate seemingly in concert with the flow of lava through various subsurface fissures, eventually spilling onto the surface at some distance from the caldera. The worst case scenario would be what follows if pressure from the flow of lava builds up along the fissures or in the caldera. I don’t think we want this volcano to develop a clogged drain.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 5, 2014 4:02 pm

Thanks for the heads up. I’ve been looking at the vatnajokull map for a month but hadn’t looked at the whole of Iceland. The Mag 3.4 on the tjornes-large map is part of a cluster between 09:00-12:00 on 10/5. So it fell within a cluster of high frequency M3+ quakes at Bardarbunga from 01:00-12:00.
Take the two most recent 48 hr periods at Bardarbunga:
_________ 10/1-3 10/3-5
M 4.5-5.0_ _ 6 _ _ _ 7
M 4.0-5.0_ _10_ _ _10
M 3.0-3.9_ _ 5 _ _ _23 (19 from 21:00 Sat to 16:00 Sun)
M 2.0-2.9_ _ 28 _ _ 19
The biggest at the fissure is a M1.4 at 13 km. most under 5 km.
Askja NE has 11 in the past 48 hrs, biggest M1.4, 4-9 km.
Nothing south of Bar.
West of Bar, M1.3 at 7 km.
The webcams are black tonight.
this link has a great map of all quakes, size my magnitude and colored by date for the past 50 days.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 6, 2014 10:51 pm

There are two recent pictures on Facebook from the Holuhraun fissure eruption and lava flows:
One is a September 2014 areal shot of the lava flow meeting the river with the fissure in the background.
Credit Greg Duncan, posted on What’s On, Iceland, Oct. 3.
The other is a masterpiece of framing, lighting, timing, and good fortune.
Posted on Erez Marom Photography, October 1
An aerial shot of a new lava flow in Holuhraun. We were incredibly lucky to be there in time for spectacular sunset colors. What an evening!

I don’t care how much color and light balancing may have (or not) been done on the shot The final product is spectacular.

Physicist with 50 years experience
October 5, 2014 3:14 pm

[more krap from Doug Cotton -mod]

Neil Jordan
October 5, 2014 3:20 pm

Hypocrisy alert. The gentleman featured in a previous WUWT post lecturing on a carbon-free lifestyle had just purchased a little seaside cottage in Malibu, California.
WUWT link:
Hypocrisy here:

Malibu link:
Newlyweds Cheryl Hines and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are putting down roots on the West Coast!
The just-married duo just purchased a gorgeous East Coast-style compound in the Point Dume area of Malibu, CA. Property records show that the home became property of Mr and Mrs. Kennedy on September 9, 2014, and they paid $4,995,000 for the 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 1 acre estate.
Melding her West Coast life with Kennedy’s East Coast roots, the Connecticut barn style main house has all new wood floors and wood elements throughout. The romantic guest house has a fireplace and full bath. The pool house has a laddered sleeping loft, full kitchen, huge shower, and a professional, soundproof recording studio!
In addition to the guest and pool house, there is a refrigerated wine shed, a two-story tree house, fire-pit, heated pool, Gunite spa, full built-in BBQ area, barn storage shed and digital phone and intercom system throughout the compound!
As she prepped for life as Mrs. Kennedy, Cheryl listed her former home in Bel Air, which just sold for $3,105,000.
[end quote]
Note the closing date of September 9th was before the Peoples Climate March on September 19-21, so there is nested hypocricy – lifestyle and sea level rise.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Neil Jordan
October 6, 2014 5:35 am

Golly. I just put earnest money down on a house in my little town on 3/4th of an acre. I think I will call it an estate. Call me unimpressed with their little piece being called a “compound”. With a price like that, I am guessing the house covers most of the 1 acre it sits on.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 6, 2014 3:08 pm

I don’t know. A year or so ago I read that in some parts of CA a mobile home can go for $1,000,000. Location, location, location (plus a bit of inflation).
They’re welcome to their “compound” as long as they don’t mess with mine.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
October 6, 2014 1:48 pm

Not a single solar panel or windmill to be seen.

October 5, 2014 3:56 pm

Canadians say, booey-heh

October 5, 2014 4:41 pm

It’s worth a look at Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute’s (AARI) sea ice maps, that rely on actual observations (from ships and aircrafts) and are available from 1950 onwards here: http://www.aari.nw.ru/gdsidb/sea_ice/arctic/scripts/aari_n.html
And it’s worth to compare them with those of the most widely used sea ice dataset: Chapman&Walsh (http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/climatology/months.shtmlhttp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png).
End of August 1952 (Chapman&Walsh) vs. September 1st 1952 (AARI):

October 5, 2014 4:42 pm

End of August 1952 (Chapman&Walsh) vs. September 1st 1952 (AARI): http://images.meteociel.fr/im/8192/image006_mgb6.png

October 5, 2014 4:47 pm

The reason we’re having trouble detecting a signal from Co2 in annual temp trends is its very small and insignificant.
This morning at ~8:45 it was ~42F air temp, clear sky and Sunny. 47F sidewalk and grass temp, zenith was ~-57. At 12:30 it got cloudy air temp ~50F 65% humidity, sidewalk 57, cloud bottom s 23.4F. 6:30 pm 50F 63%, sidewalk was 51F, but clear skies at -59F.
Co2 adds 3-4 F at ~-50F, 1-2 F at 23F.
So 70F between clouds and no clouds vs 4F between Co2 and no Co2.
These are the temps the surface radiates to. You wonder why they are running as fast as they can from AGW being based on surface temps? Between ir temps, the difference between yesterday’s raising temp and last night’s falling temp, that surface temp are not changing globally, but mostly regionally, surface temps are a real loser.

October 6, 2014 7:00 am

Julia Roberts as Mother Nature: ‘I Don’t Really Need People’
Should the human race suffer a massive die-off or even extinction, Mother Nature, to hear Julia Roberts tell it, won’t much care.

Reply to  brent
October 6, 2014 8:29 am

I wish Greens would make up their minds. Which is it, humans can destroy nature or can we not?

Gunga Din
Reply to  sturgishooper
October 6, 2014 3:12 pm

Only humans that aren’t green can destroy nature. So I guess only the little green men from Mars are OK?
(Some of the greens probably think that’s how we all got here to begin with.)

Dan Hughes
October 6, 2014 10:52 am

These papers are free-access available online until January 2015 at http://www.annualreviews.org/toc/statistics/1/1:
Statistics and Climate,
Peter Guttorp, Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
For a statistician, climate is the distribution of weather and other variables that are part of the climate system. This distribution changes over time. This review considers some aspects of climate data, climate model assessment, and uncertainty estimation pertinent to climate issues, focusing mainly on temperatures. Some interesting methodological needs that arise from these issues are also considered.
First paragraph of Introduction:
This review contains a statistician’s take on some issues in climate research. The point of view is that of a statistician versed in multidisciplinary research; the review itself is not multidisciplinary. In other words, this review could not reasonably be expected to be publishable in a climate journal. Instead, it contains a point of view on research problems dealing with some climate issues, problems amenable to sophisticated statistical methods and ways of thinking. Often such methods are not current practice in climate science, so great opportunities exist for interested statisticians.
Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,
Jonathan Rougier and Michael Goldstein
Department of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TW, United Kingdom;
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Durham, Durham, DH1 3LE
We provide a statistical interpretation of current practice in climate modeling. In this review, we define weather and climate, clarify the relationship between simulator output and simulator climate, distinguish between a climate simulator and a statistical climate model, provide a statistical interpretation of the ubiquitous practice of anomaly correction along with a substantial generalization (the best-parameter approach), and interpret simulator/data comparisons as posterior predictive checking, including a simple adjustment to allow for double counting. We also discuss statistical approaches to simulator tuning, assessing parametric uncertainty, and responding to unrealistic outputs. We finish with a more general discussion of larger themes.
Our purpose in this review is to interpret current practice in climate modeling in the light of statistical inferences about past and future weather. In this way, we hope to emphasize the common ground between our two communities and to clarify climate modeling practices that may not, at first sight, seem particularly statistical. From this starting point, we can then suggest some relatively simple enhancements and identify some larger issues. Naturally, we have had to simplify many practices in climate modeling, but not—we hope—to the extent of making them unrecognizable.
Climate: your distribution of weather, represented as a multivariate spatiotemporal process (inherently subjective)
Weather: measurable aspects of the ambient atmosphere, notably temperature, precipitation, and wind speed.

October 6, 2014 12:22 pm

On Computer Programs, Computer Models, the Scientific Method, and Global Warming
Anyone who has been following the current global warming science knows that there is relationship among all of the issues in this article’s title. I will attempt to make the relationships more clear.
First, my credentials. I am a 1985 graduate of West Point with a degree in computer science. I have been working in the computer field since I left the Service, which gives me more than 20 years of experience in IT. Currently I am working as an Oracle DBA, as I have been since 1999.
Through our history, as science developed and grew more complex, the need for complex equations also developed. As equations get more complex, the chance of error and the time required to calculate the answers for the equations grew. Particularly in such applications as projectile motion, the need for rapid, correct answers to complex equations kept increasing. It was this need for quick, correct answers to difficult equations that led to the development of computers and computer programs. A computer program will always produce the same answer to the same question. Note that the above description may not be the history of computers that you have read, but it contains the basics of computer development in a nutshell.
This leads us to computer models. A computer model is simply an equation or series of equations used to simulate a real world condition in the form of a computer program, sometimes mistakenly called a software program. Computer models are used because a given set of data will always result in the same answer, and it will be the correct answer if the program is correctly written. Models are used extensively today in projectile motion, orbital mechanics, and other scientific and engineering fields.
The most import single item to understand about computer programs is this: They are used to calculate an answer based on the theory of the scientist or engineer is applying. The programmer writes the program so that it complies with that theory. For example, the basic formula for calculating the distance an object will travel in a vacuum is a quadratic equation. This same formula can be used on Earth, even though it is not in vacuum, so the equation isn’t quite right, but it will still get close to the correct answer. So the initial programs were written just to resolve the quadratic equation. As more and more variables are resolved, the equation can be modified and fixed, and the answer gets closer and closer to reality. For example atmospheric pressure and air temperatures are significant factors that are figured into ballistics computers these days, but they are not part of that initial simple quadratic equation. Even the initial equation isn’t quite right because the Earth’s gravity field isn’t consistent everywhere because a planet and its moon are not perfect spheres. But the key point to this is that the scientist has a theory on how something works, and uses a program to determine what the answer would be if his theory is correct. In ballistics, the theory was a quadratic equation, which was close, but there were other items to factor in that reflected the real world. Thus a computer model is actually the mathematical version of the scientific theory, and as such it cannot prove a theory is correct. The model in effect is the theory, so at best it can provide evidence that the theory is correct. It can never prove it is correct even though it can provide very good evidence that a theory is incorrect.
Global Warming/Climate Change theory states (simply put) that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, temperature increases. When you see the output of a computer model, the model will show that when the input of CO2 increases, the temperature increases. The output of these computer models prove nothing other than the program was written properly. It does not prove the theory is correct. It doesn’t even provide evidence for the theory unless the output closely tracks the real world temperature.
This brings us to the models used in global warming theory. When you see a graph of the predicted warming due to increasing CO2, you will see a single line. What they typically do not tell you is that this single line is almost always an average of approximately 100 different computer models, each run many different times using different sets of numbers. The simple fact that this is an average of 100 models should immediately raise a question in any rational person. If there are 100 models being used, which model is the correct one? Yet each of those models is supposed to represent the same theory. There can be only one correct model for any theory, but we are given the output of over 100 different models as evidence of Global Warming.
If the calculated distance of travel of an artillery round is 2 miles in our previous example, but the measured distance was half a mile, there is something seriously wrong with either the theory or the execution. Keep in mind that we have actual measurements of temperature dating back to the development of accurate thermometers. Thus, the first step in checking the accuracy of a computer model of temperature is the hindcasting. That is, can you feed it data from the years prior to 2001 and get accurate predictions for 2001-2013? Most of the models used today are dismal failures at this step one.
In global warming theory, only a cursory look is required to compare the output of the global warming models with the actual measurements over the last 15 years to determine that the predicted warming is between two and three times the measured warming. This is very strong evidence that, at the very least, the equations they are using in this theory are very wrong. Yet several times a month, we hear claims about ‘proven’ global warming science or ‘settled science’ or ‘97% consensus’, most recently from our own Secretary of State. In the chart below, the red line is the predictions by the climate models, and the green and blue lines are measurements.
Another problem with the theories is the ‘extreme weather’ claims. Most theories and their models claim that there will be more extreme weather events of increasing severity due to increasing global CO2. It is the analysis (or to be more exact, the lack thereof) of this piece of theory that should make the reasonable person question the competency of those espousing the theory. In the US, and most other countries, we have very good records of extreme weather, going back over 150 years. In Europe, the records are even longer. According to global warming theory and models, human generated CO2 started having an effect around 1940-1950. This means that if extreme weather was on the increase, we should have seen a gradual increase starting at about that same time. However, a check of the records (the extreme weather page at noaa.gov is a good place to look) shows that there is no trend in extreme weather since 1950 (or before). That means no change in the severity or number of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, cyclones, droughts, blizzards, etc. So in this case, we can compare the model output with current measurements, and determine that once again there is a major problem with the model.
The larger problem here is that these scientists made the claim of increasing extreme weather due to increasing CO2, programmed it into their models, but evidently didn’t know that the evidence they needed was already available to prove or disprove this theory.
Competent scientists would have known that the evidence to disprove this part of the theory was available, and researched it before they published theories that are obviously incorrect. Yet these same scientists are sticking to this part of the theory, along with the rest of the theory, even though it has been disproven. The fact that these ‘scientists’ ignore the fact that their theory has been disproven, and even continue to espouse the theory, is enough to bring the competency of these scientists into serious question.
This leads us to the next topic, what some people have called PlayStation climatology. PlayStation climatology is the result of examining a particular piece of global warming theory and then taking it to its worst case. The drastic result of this input is then examined for real world consequences. A classic example of this is the erroneous scare tactic report that polar bears are in danger due to shrinking arctic ice. The idea is that if all the arctic ice disappears, polar bears will go extinct because they need the ice to survive. Well, first of all the arctic ice is not going to disappear. The temperatures in the arctic regions are still well below the freezing point of sea water. Second, according to global warming theory, arctic ice has been receding since approximately 1977. However, if we do a little research we discover that the polar bear population has been on the increase since approximately 1945, and is currently at an all time high. Yet this claim about polar bears was made in normally reputable s and labeled science.
As we noted above, the climate models aren’t even close on the temperature predictions, which is what they are intended to predict. How could they possibly be accurate on data that is normally used as just another parameter in the program? Other examples of PlayStation climatology include the disappearing sea turtles (they’re not, at least not due to climate change), decreasing trade winds, increasing droughts, increasing floods, and almost any alarmist prediction you have read in the last decade that is related to global warming. All of these come from nothing more than feeding data back into these same incorrect models to get alarming predictions.

george e. smith
Reply to  dbakerber
October 7, 2014 9:16 pm

I don’t have the faintest idea how ANY climate, or so-called GCMs work; Global Coupled Models, I think that stands for. Dunno what couples to what. I have never seen written down any recognizable mathematical equation for any smidgeon of some physical process that is supposed to be going on here on earth that in some way relates to either weather or climate.
The way I see it, the laws of physics are obeyed instantaneously. Physical systems do not sit and twittle their thumbs, before suddenly deciding to react to some stimulus, force or whatever.
It may be just attoseconds, or a microscopic fraction of that for some reaction to happen, and of course, the velocity of light, and other speed limits determine just how fast effects can propagate, but the don’t wait to be told.
In particular, I would like a GCM or a climate model to start by acknowledging that the earth rotates on its axis about once in 24 hours or so.
So forget all that BS about there being some kind of equilibrium state. There isn’t even any steady state, let alone any equilibrium state. Specially when it comes to thermo-dynamics, where everything in the system must be at exactly the same temperature, for it to be in thermal equilibrium.
And since there isn’t any equilibrium, then their are changes in process, and the propagation of those changes takes time. Heat energy (noun) travels quite slowly in the scheme of things along a copper bar, with a temperature gradient. Even slower in most other materials.
Well I’m not going to expand this into an essay. But I would like one day to come across some list of the various mathematical equations, that these Terra-computers are supposed to be solving, to follow the laws of physics, through a day in the life of planet earth.
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for such equations. And if I find the word “average”, anywhere in those equations or dissertations, I will go and get a very big cage full of parrots to put all that paper to a more useful application.
Peter humbug, is supposed to be good at GCMs, but , I’ve never seen any of his equations either.
But today is not a total loss.
Shuji Nakamura, today, became a new Nobel Laureate in Physics; and I can’t imagine who was the previous, most deserving recipient of that award.
Nakamura is accompanied by two other Japanese scientists, in the award. I plead total ignorance of their work, but I’m sure going to look them up.
Way to go Shuji, you certainly had this award coming to you, so congratulations.

george e. smith
Reply to  dbakerber
October 10, 2014 1:05 pm

Also, I have long thought (many years) that Professor Nick Holonyak Jr, of the U of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana), inventor of the first Light Emitting Diode (GaAsP), was the most deserving non recipient of the Nobel prize in Physics.
This year, It would have been quite appropriate for the Swedish Nobel committee, to have awarded the Physics Prize jointly to Holonyak and Shuji Nakamura, for the first , and the first blue LEDs.
It is unfortunate that they did not choose this opportunity.
I know Nick Holonyak personally, and I’ve met Dr Nakamura (nice guy).
This was a big foot in mouth by the Nobel committee.
They have awarded the Physics prize several times for “Technology,” rather than “pure physics”. In 2009 to George E. Smith (not me) for the invention of the CCD (Charge Coupled Device) a semi-conductor gizmo. Also Jack Kilby of TI got the Physics prize for the integrated circuit. Bob Noyce, who invented a real integrated circuit, was not recognized, since they don’t award posthumously. So they just took too damn long to appreciate the invention of the integrated circuit. Jack Kilby just hand wired some transistors on a common wafer, instead of cutting them up first, and packaging them, and then hand wiring them up. Noyce’s IC was already wired up on the wafer.
Quite a few Nobels are given to the wrong persons, possibly for academic political reasons. Steven Chu, Obama’s energy czar, got the Nobel in Physics, for Optical trapping (by laser beams). That was actually invented decades earlier, by a Bell Labs guy; who subsequently taught Chu, how to do it. His name escapes, me, problem of short term memory, but he even did it on his own time. Bell Labs didn’t even support it till he had essentially done it; I guess his name was Ashkin.

October 6, 2014 2:24 pm

IPCC AR5 TS.6 lists a lot of very important climate issues, including models and extreme weather, that the IPCC scientists admit they don’t understand well, if at all..

October 7, 2014 8:25 am

The three most recent 48 hr periods at Bardarbunga:
_________ 10/1-3 10/3-5 10/5-7
M5.1+_ _ _ _0 _ _ _ 0_ _ (5.1,5.5)
M 4.5-5.0_ _ 6 _ _ _ 7_ _ _ _ 2
M 4.0-5.0_ _10_ _ _10_ _ _ _9
M 3.0-3.9_ _ 5 _ _ _23_ _ _ _9
M 2.0-2.9_ _ 28 _ _ 19_ _ __26
@Fissure # _ 20 _ _ 18_ _ _ _8
@Fis. MaxM 1.4(13km), 2.7(10km)
Askja # _ 2grp 26 _ _11 _ _ _ 6
The M5.5 at Bardarbunga appears on the far SE side of the caldera, 8 km, Long 17.35W.
the M5.1 was at 2 km
The biggest at the fissure is a M2.7 at 10 km, unusually large. But there are very few of any size. only 8 on the 3DBulge over 48 hrs.
Askja NE has only 6 in the past 48 hrs, biggest M1.2, 5 km.
South of Bar, but there is one M2.2 at 7km
West of Bar: nothing on 3DBulge, but there is one on the vedur.is map
Web cams weathered in last night and this morning.
Reykjanes Penninsula: two cluster of M1.0-2.0 quakes. Long 22.4W and 21.30-.35W
Tjornes Fracture zone Large: M2.0: 2. M1.0-1.9: 8.

October 8, 2014 9:06 am

I’ve only been looking at this map of Iceland “North Atlantic” since Pamela Gray’s Oct. 5 comment.
Yesterday the quakes offshore to the north showed up. Today, the sub M2.0 quakes along the SW Reykjanes ridge showed up.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
October 8, 2014 9:18 am

They just had a 5.2
08.10.2014 16:00:29 64.674 -17.495 1.1 km 0.9 63.04 4.1 km NNE of Bárðarbunga
08.10.2014 15:30:08 64.678 -17.511 1.4 km 1.1 52.26 4.3 km N of Bárðarbunga
08.10.2014 15:29:01 64.682 -17.470 0.1 km 0.9 90.01 5.4 km NNE of Bárðarbunga
08.10.2014 15:24:14 64.680 -17.491 5.1 km 5.2 99.0 4.7 km NNE of Bárðarbunga
08.10.2014 15:17:51 64.674 -17.487 3.2 km 3.9 99.0 4.2 km NNE of Bárðarbunga

October 8, 2014 12:42 pm

I suggest you not try to do as many news stories as you usually do.

October 9, 2014 10:08 am

The four most recent 48 hr periods at Bardarbunga:
_________ 10/1-3 10/3-5 _1 0/5-7 _ 10/7-9
M5.1+__ _ _ _0 _ _ _ 0_ _ (5.1,5.5) _ _(5.2)
M 4.5-5.0 _ _ 6 _ _ _ 7_ _ _ _ 2 _ _ _ _ 2
M 4.0-5.0 _ _10_ _ _10_ _ _ _9 _ _ _ _ 4
M 3.0-3.9 _ _ 5 _ _ _23_ _ _ _9 _ _ _ _ 7
M 2.0-2.9 _ _ 28 _ _ 19_ _ __26 _ _ _ 34
@Fissure # _ 20 _ _ 18_ _ _ _8 _ _ __10
@Fis. MaxM _ _ _ 1.4@13_2.7@10 1.5@13
Askja # _ 2grp 26 _ _11 _ _ _ 6 _ _ _ _11a
S. of Bard _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M2.3@1
W. of Bard _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9
a: Askja #: only 4 visible on the 3DBulge data, but at least 11 on the Vatnajokull Map
Askja NE had a M2.5 @ 3 km. This cluster may be extending to the north and the recent activity at the northern Tjornes facture zone may be moving SE toward it.
The fissure has 10 in the past 48 hrs, biggest M1.5 @12 km and M1.3 at 6 km.
South of Bar, but there is one M2.3 at 1km
West of Bar: 6 on3DBulge, biggest M2.1 @ 4km, there are 9 vedur.is map
Web cams weathered in last two day and nights when I looked.
Reykjanes Penninsula: M1.0-M1.9: 5 quakes.
Tjornes Fracture zone Large: M2.0: 1. M1.0-1.9: 7.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
October 9, 2014 10:45 am

Twitter: John A Stevenson ‏@volcan01010 · Oct 7
#Holuhraun area now 52.3km2 in 34 days => ~1.5km2/day
=> ~one football (soccer) pitch every 7 minutes! #Bardarbunga

October 11, 2014 11:03 am

The five most recent 48 hr periods at Bardarbunga:
_________ 10/1-3 10/3-5 _1 0/5-7 _ 10/7-9 _ 10/9-11
M5.1+__ _ _ _0 _ _ _ 0_ _ (5.1,5.5) _ _(5.2)_ _ (5.2)
M 4.5-5.0 _ _ 6 _ _ _ 7_ _ _ _ 2 _ _ _ _ 2 _ _ _ _ 6
M 4.0-5.0 _ _10_ _ _10_ _ _ _9 _ _ _ _ 4 _ _ _ _ 6
M 3.0-3.9 _ _ 5 _ _ _23_ _ _ _9 _ _ _ _ 7 _ _ _ _10
M 2.0-2.9 _ _ 28 _ _ 19_ _ __26 _ _ _ 34 _ _ _ _ 34
@Fissure # _ 20 _ _ 18_ _ _ _8 _ _ __10 _ _ _ _24
@Fis. MaxM _ _ _ 1.4@13_2.7@10 1.5@13 _ 2.0@7
Askja # _ 2grp 26 _ _11 _ _ _ 6 _ _ _ _11a _ _ _11a
S. of Bard _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M2.3@1 _ 2 M1.1
W. of Bard _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9 _ _ __ 8 M3.0
a: again, Askja isn’t showing up on the 3DBulge data, but there are 11 on the map.
Reykjanes Penninsula: M2.0+ 0: M1.0-M1.9: 1 quakes. (less activity)
Tjornes Fracture zone Large: M2.0+: 0. M1.0-1.9: 2. (less activity)
Not much in the news. Estimates that it is still flowing 350 m^3/sec. Total volume erupted is 0.77 km^3
A helicopter video, not very noteworthy, except the final 10 seconds that are a wide angle showing the fissure and the distributaries of the lava river.
The fissure quake activity is higher than in recent days. two M2.0 quakes at 7km and 9 km. a dozen small ones M0.7-M1.5 at 12km.
West of Bardarbunga there are more, larger and shallow quakes.
Webcams are socked in day and night for the last several days