I’m out on Tampa Bay fishing with Ed. You’ll have to fend for yourselves. Feel free to discuss anything within our normal bounds.
Fish stories to follow later.
I’m out on Tampa Bay fishing with Ed. You’ll have to fend for yourselves. Feel free to discuss anything within our normal bounds.
Fish stories to follow later.
Enjoy and relax, Anthony, but watch out for the Big One. A hurricane, I mean. The devils have a way of sneaking up on you when you are not looking.
We were called ‘global warming deniers’.
Then we were called ‘climate change deniers’.
Now we are called ‘climate deniers’.
What next ‘atmosphere deniers’?
Have you noticed that the abuse has been modified during period of the temperature standstill?
Acid ocean deniers?
I’ll wear that title with honor.
Maybe I can sneak this in while Anthony’s having fun fishing.
🙂
lol — thanks for the fun (and true!) humor, D.B. Stealey — really cleverly done, often getting the Deutsche to closely imitate the English subtitle.
Well snuck!
Lol. He’ll never find out. 😉
Very funny!
Can anyone help me locate the data referenced in the following paper:
Battle, M., Bender, M., Sowers, T., Tans, P. P., Butler, J. H., Elkins, J. W., Ellis, J. T., Conway, T., Zhang, N., Lang, P., and Clarke, A. D.: 1996, ‘Atmospheric Gas Concentrations over the Past
Century Measured in Air from Firn at the South Pole’, Nature 383, 231–235.
I am looking for the methane and nitrous oxide concentrations they extracted from the South Pole firn. I have emailed Battle and Bender, but they won’t respond.
This data was also used in the chart Figure 5 on this page of the NOAA’s site:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
I have emailed three people at NOAA and they won’t respond.
Any ideas where to get this data?
Thanks.
There is so much great information on this website. The charts and graphs stick in my head much longer than the prose.
Has anyone ever collected and organized the visual information presented here? I would be willing to take that on if people think it is a worthwhile endeavor.
@dbstealey 09:59
keyboard/screen redecorated with a fine Malbec.
Jimbo says:
We were called ‘global warming deniers’.
Then we were called ‘climate change deniers’.
Now we are called ‘climate deniers’.
What next ‘atmosphere deniers’?
I am a denial denier.
Don’t catch them all. Leave 2 or 3 fish for me, Anthony. I’ll be fishing Tampa Bay and out in the Gulf in February.
The fishing is always great. I hope the catching is just as good. Here’s hoping you can hook and boat a good sized tarpon.
Fishing is better with the tarp off.
Ouch! :o)
Why would you “boat it”, for a start it is illegal without a kill permit (which used to cost $50). You can’t remove it from the water to take a photo, without that permit.
Just bring it alongside, and take the hook out, and let it go (after waking it up).
Figure of speech, George, but at the same time, I wasn’t aware that the picture-and-release was a no-no. None of my Tampa Bay fishing is from a boat so I never gave it a thought. Everything I’ve caught has to be dragged onto the beach or reeled into hand to de-hook.
Thanks for the tip. I’ve not hooked a tarpon (or tarpoff) so I’m now a little better prepared should tie into one. I’ve noted that one is usually better off shooting someone at high noon downtown at Main and High with 100 witnesses than violating a fish and game regulation. Lighter penalties for the shooting, doncha know ;o)
No problem H.R. You can bring the fish to the boat and take pics of it in the water, or you can safely lift the head out of the water. But taking the fish out of the water and slapping it across your knees for the GWH photo is a no-no. The fish simply cannot support its innards properly, out of the water, specially in the across the knees position.
Realistically, baby tarpon, up to maybe 15-20 pounds, it’s not an issue, but I’m sure the Florida law still applies.
My biggest one “landed” was estimated 150, and I nearly had the very first (fly rod) 200 # tarpon, but broke it off with a knot in the 15# tippet. But we could have gaffed the fish and had it in the boat. But I wasn’t going to do that anyway. That was at Homosassa, where the giants grow.
They’re spectacular fish. We don’t take bill fish out of the water either.
Let em go, and catch them again another day.
Open thread discussion:
The recent US elections were quite unusual.
Do WUWT readers believe that the recent drastic election results show a great deal of destroyed trust in the various experts, like those claiming man-made global warming is real, and apocalyptic?
Does it reveal that a large part of the populace has gotten tired of grand schemes from Executive-Branch Czars?
Does it mean that communists are actually afoot, and that the populace has finally figured it out?
Or is there simply natural variability in election results from year to year? And the accusations of watermelons everywhere is plain ol’ McCarthyism?
I think its more of a referendum on government not being accountable to its more common citizens as opposed to special interests and further a reflection of the natural ebb and flow of various election cycles.
I have a question, it concerns the ERL (Effective Radiation Level) and I’m familiar (as most WUWT bloggers) with Lindzen’s slide show explanation of the enhanced greenhouse effect.
I’m sort of, totally uneducated….went to school, played football, distracted by cheerleaders, graduated from art college, but my father, who cared, was an aeronautical engineer.
Here’s Lindzen’s part, slightly edited and the parenthesis are mine……”To be sure, adding greenhouse gases (CO2) to the atmosphere raises the ERL (effective radiation level) where outgoing long-wave balances incoming short-wave (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). This means the new emission level is colder than the original emission level. This reduces the outgoing infrared radiative flux, which no longer balances the net incoming solar radiation. Thus, the troposphere (because it’s dynamically, which means forcefully, mixed) must warm as a whole, including the surface while preserving its lapse rate (the rate of decrease with height for temperature)”.
So!…..IMHO, both the elevation increase of the new emission level and the time required to establish the new equilibrium are unknown, ergo (I guess) how much it warms and what impact the phenomenon has on climate is yet to be determined.
Here’s my question: Since the new level is higher it’s also larger, as if an expanding balloon, hence more OLR, thus equilibrium somewhat maintained. Yes? No?
I’m not sure.
There are many different effects in the real world that aren’t in that simple description.
Perhaps there will be more phase changes (water vapour turning to ice or vice versa) due to increased downdraughts or other local wind patterns. Perhaps clouds are affected reducing the incoming energy – or maybe slowing the escape of energy – and who knows what the rate is for those changes. If they happen.
Perhaps increased warmth causes algal blooms that change the colour of the ocean and thus the reflectance/absorbance.
Perhaps…
What I’m saying is that any simple prediction about the climate will be wrong (or unjustified) because the weather isn’t simple.
MCourtney, I like your answer, it’s one my father would have said. When I posted this question, I mistakenly left out my name, yet it went through, kudos WUWT.
Regards, Phil.
No worries, Phil Brisley.
Glad to help with my acknowledged ignorance.
And I managed to get that without being distracted by cheerleaders, sigh.
Phil Brisley, kudos to the comma. [,] you put in. 😉
[, November 11, 2014 at 10:44 am ]
Jimbo, nice catch, I am respectfully humbled.
What to talk about in a presentation in man-made global warming.
Yes, the concept that skepticism is the leading hallmark of the scientific approach to seeking knowledge.
Therefore, when you practice skepticism, you almost cannot be labeled “un-scientific.”
Also: maybe present the topic of natural variability, and the problem of the ecological fallacy, especially when the time span surveyed is too brief to encompass natural variability.
Regarding natural variability, one strategy is to bring up a well-recognized concept: the 100-year flood plain.
Ask people to explain it. Ask how that flood plain might be determined.
It obviously depends on data going back at least 100 years. If any home-owner recognizes this illustration of natural variability, it becomes obvious you cannot look at Arctic sea ice levels from 1979-today, 15 years, and identify a down-turn as proof of global warming, much less man-made global warming.
Study: Farmers and scientists divided over climate change
http://phys.org/news/2014-11-farmers-scientists-climate.html
The study was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is available at
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1 PDF open access
So, the people who spend their lives in front of computers in academia are totally sold on the belief that whatever brings them grants must be true. The horny-handed sons of the soil whose very livelihood depends on an intimate knowledge of the effect of weather and climate on their business aren’t even sure that the climate is changing.
I wonder who might be right?
Perhaps McCarthy was an optimist ?
An interesting webinar showing the institutionalization of sustainability:
http://eponline.com/articles/2014/11/04/climate-change-standards-webinar.aspx
[begin quote]
Climate Change Standards Webinar Set for Nov. 18
Nov 04, 2014
The American National Standards Institute Network on Smart and Sustainable Cities will host a free webinar Nov. 18 about applying the climate change standards of the International Organization for Standardization to cities and local governments. It will take place from 2 p.m. to 3:30 pm EST.
ANSI calls climate change “the preeminent issue of our time,” citing events such as “Superstorm” Sandy. The webinar will focus on the work program of ISO Technical Committee 207’s Subcommittee 7 on greenhouse gas management and related activities; mainly deals with measuring, reducing, managing, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions. The requirements defined in ISO 14065:2007, Greenhouse gases – Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies for use in accreditation or other forms of recognition, are the basis for ANSI’s accreditation program for organizations providing third-party validation and verification services.
[end quote]
I checked the ISO link
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40685
and reviewed the introductory materials. Greenhouse gases are defined as:
[begin quote]
3.1.1
greenhouse gas GHG
gaseous constituent of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorbs and emits radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere, and clouds
Note 1 to entry: GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
[SOURCE: ISO 14064-3:2006, definition 2.1]
[end quote]
They left out water vapor.
They always leave out water vapour. It is supposedly because it responds to the other GHGs, water being in abundance.
This is convenient. Natural variations obviously swamp anthropogenic emissions of water (look at the rain) so it can’t be included as a GHG.
That would invalidate the whole cAGW hypothesis; unless water vapour is governed by anthropogenic GHGs.
A hypothesis for which there is no evidence, of course.
MCourtney, well said, you shouldn’t be surprised (I’m sure you’re not), AGW as a concern still has a great deal of support. Throughout the first world, it’s almost all media, all three levels of government, all three levels of education, I could go on…it’s everywhere. Anybody who is anybody thinks they need to be on board the good ship AGW, they can’t be branded a “denier”, after all this is about saving the world.
That temperatures have not increased this century while CO2 has it’s now obvious to many the anthro CO2 bite on longwave IR really doesn’t have the teeth required to noticeably increase temps or change climate. Longwave retention in the lower atmosphere is largely a water vapour affair (as you say). And, as I said earlier, if adding CO2 raises the ERL (Effective Radiation Level), then the new level has a larger surface area to radiate from (as if an expanding balloon) so there really isn’t that much disturbance to the equilibrium where outgoing longwave balances incoming shortwave.
Everyone who reads this blog understands the possibility this AGW thing really has been and is still being oversold. It’s mostly ego, folks don’t want to say they were wrong. The global warming issue had its American debut in 1988, the roll-out coincided with rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures. There was genuine concern. Gore’s documentary convinced the public the planet was warming and we were the cause. Everyone boarded the good ship AGW in the belief of saving the world from the fast approaching man-made climate of doom.
Inspite of what I don’t know, I’m not impressed with the hype. As Lindzen says this “irrational obsession with carbon footprints and climate” will hopefully, eventually end and the tried and true: theory, observation and test,test,test will prevail..
That’s no reason not to try and govern CAGWVW. (Catastrophic Anthropometric Water Vapor Warming)
(But I guess water vapor is wet so it won’t stick against the wall as well….and there aren’t many economies that depend on it.)
Hello again Phil Brisley, Yes.
A lot of the support for cAGW comes from people not wanting to admit thy were suckered. Yet the “Pause” proves they were.
My own thoughts are to let them back away quietly and let the problem die with a whimper or less than that noise. Let their final judgement come from above; I won’t judge then for having made a mistake.
Here in the UK the hyped AGW thing dates back to at least 1985 when Thatcher wanted to kick the coal mining unions.
FYI: My father was the 1st sceptic – even before that Aussie blog with the cloudy background. His first anti-AGW paper was about 1982.
We in the UK also have a different 3 levels of government.
But the issues are the same on both side of the Pond.
MCourtney, I’m familiar with your father’s history. I was quite delighted it was you who answered my original question, thanks.
That’s only because they know the government can’t regulate and tax water vapour.
Looks like the Hillsborough Bay…if you are in the Old Tampa Bay, get to the south side of Gandy Bridge, excellent fishing there.
Reuse this giant gas guzzling helicopter to save the planet!
But we have to replace all of our old automobiles with energy efficient models, as well as all of our old refrigerators, washers and dryers?
See underneath the pictures.
http://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/aucalsrh/?sl=91QSCI15075302
The Ivanpah solar complex that was built with a $1.6 billion taxpayer loan is back at the trough again asking for $539 billion. It get my blood boiling.
I posted that somewhere, the best comment that came back was “Robbing Peter to pay Peter.”
A quote, having been ascribed to various individuals but who source is probably a paraphrase of Abba Eban: “Americans will inevitably do the right thing, once they have exhausted all other alternatives.”
Makes me wonder if it will be applied that to our foolishness with ‘billions for alternatives and climate’. Let’s say the tide finally turns and the world realizes that innovations takes time but those that are cost effective are the ones that survive.
Galveston TX has a seawall, I shutter to think if they had not built it. BUT you see, Galveston was a great shipping city. A great shipping city needs to be low and on the coast. In the 100 years before the great hurricane that leveled Galveston in 1900 there had been 11 major hurricane strikes. They had endured 4ft, 7ft and 8.5 ft storm surges and flooding. So they knew how susceptible they were to hurricanes. THEN came 1900 and 15.5 ft of water and a direct hit. The countries response was 1.5 million (about 50 million today) in direct aide to the city and Galveston build a large seawall to protect themselves at a cost of 1.6 million over 4 years. Since then 2 major hurricanes have stuck and each time it has protected the city and saved well over 150 million in damages.
The take away is: Data! REAL data drives our understanding of the future and how we should respond. The real cost of protecting the city of Galveston was minuscule compared to the benefits.
That is how we should drive green and alternate energies.
From the “just weather” files: northern US suffers under near-record cold. Snow forecast for NE Oregon this week, with lows in single digits F in the Blue Mountains. Records set back in the ’70s, around the time of the previous PDO flip, from cool to warm mode. Now we’re flipping back. No man-made climate change explanations need apply.
While Pres Obama negotiates a Climate Change agreement with the Red Chinese though. Stupidity on the Left knows no bounds of logic or honesty.
One of my favorites and seems fitting this week:
You’re just baiting us, right? My birthplace.
I’ve seen claims that one Icelandic volcano emits in 4 days more GHGs than were allegedly prevented from being emitted by human beings during the whole time of the existence of environmentalist programs. Is this true? And, if it is, what are the actual numbers?
That sounds like rubbish. The interchange with the ocean dominates both.
SkS address this and give some figures that sound about right:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Indeed their graph of Mauna Loa with the big volcanoes on show that CO2 rise is so smooth it can’t be related to anything at a decadal scale.
In my opinion, that includes the economy and industrialisation. But SkS don’t address that.
I thought it was an exaggeration. And yet, finding exact information about the amount of GHGs (not only CO2) emitted by volcanoes seems to be exceedingly difficult.
Yeah, it is hard to get precise figures. Probably because most volcano emissions are under the sea or near dangerous lava craters.
That’s why I resorted to SkS. Their numbers (in this case) make sense.
And if volcanoes were so obviously bigger than all mankind I’m sure we would have heard by now.
“Higgs’ Boson,” most probably, ain’t Higgs’ Boson: I told you so.
I recall you did but I don’t know about this.
Link to Higgs news, please.
It’s all over the news.
For example:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/11/09/1334236/cern-may-not-have-discovered-higgs-boson-after-all
Alexander Feht, thank you. But I’m now more convinced that the Higgs boson was found. Sorry.
To find this alternative explanation of the readings they need to deduce a 5th fundamental force.
OK, this conveniently unifies the other 4 – that’s what it’s for – but it seems to me that it should be cut out by Occam’s Razor.
From the article slashdot links to:
“If CERN gets an even more powerful accelerator, it will in principle be able to observe techni-quarks directly.”
This might take a while. We’re still busy building the necessary wind turbines.
I am even more sorry, because no important discovery should be proclaimed on the basis of a single, non-reproduced, and highly dubious blip.
Over 100 messages and no one has mentioned India’s new weapon against climate change, yoga minister Shripad Yesso?
Mahatma Gandhi gave us some idea how sophisticated Indian humor can be. And this is equally pleasurable. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/india-minister-yoga_n_6141162.html
Great post, Cheered me up no end. Modi impresses as being on top of it all. And yes I think he is having a big wink at the climate flap-doodling of other nations. Let’s face it yoga is just as likely to fix climate change as anything else. Can’t lose on that one. Also Modi recently reconstituted his Climate Council or whatever it is called there to retain more powers himself (it hasn’t met for three years but will meet soon which is any time in the next century according to Indian time). The head of IPCC Pachauri is still on it. The Indians maintain great order and wisdom in the face of various intrusions from outside and the seeming chaos of their own. I might even be tempted to join him on the next Yoga International Day. ohm… happy fishing from an Oz fan.
Open thread: Lightning at Black Hawks tonight. Go Bolts!