Open Thread



open_threadFeel free to discuss topics within the bound of regular discussions here at WUWT.

Regular programming will resume this weekend.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2014 6:21 pm

Happy Thanksgiving.

November 27, 2014 6:22 pm

The thread is frayed due to global warming. Don’t be a thread denier.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 12:44 am

Off topic.
“Thread Denier” is a measure of fabric weight and strength.

[But, what is the calibrated measure of a “Thread Denier”? 0- 1.000? 10 to 1000? “A” to “F”? What is a “good” Thread Denier” and what is a “Bad” “Thread Denier”? Since resistance and stiffness and coarseness (and skepticism) are a “good thing” under some circumstances (work clothes and fan belts and backpacks) and a “bad thing” under other circumstances (lingerie, underwear, pajama’s) when a “Thread denier” and good thing, and when is it a bad thing?

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 28, 2014 7:10 am

a piece of string walks into a bar..the bartender says “I can’t serve you…youre a string”
the string [replies]…”no, Im a frayed knot”

Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 28, 2014 2:58 pm

He’s just spinning a old yarn, so don’t get roped in.

Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 5:41 am

Don’t be ‘fraid of global warming.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 6:39 am

Groan…… 🙂

Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 6:44 am

From the picture it appears to be hemp. Looks like easy funding tying global warming to weaker rope.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 28, 2014 8:41 am

It’s actually not string, it’s hawser and cable laid rope.

george e. smith
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 28, 2014 5:26 pm

That is also the weaker dope.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 4:20 pm

Thread carefully.

Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 29, 2014 7:07 am

The thread is magnified so much it looks like a rope. Kind of like the global temperature anomaly which is zoomed in so much it looks like a problem.

Neil Jordan
November 27, 2014 6:23 pm

A colleague just emailed this item from HockeySchtick:
New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2
A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.
The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find
“We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 27, 2014 6:30 pm

We’re due for a prolonged period of cold.

Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 2:40 am

And this guy (John L. Casey) says that we’re approaching a solar minimum (like the Dalton minimum) which will lead into a little (or big) ice age, Further, he says that there will be an increase in earthquakes.This stuff looks pretty convincing – perhaps Lief could comment?

Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 1:10 pm

Saying that we are due is a rather meaningless thing to say, unless you qualify it with a time frame. I.E. near future, a few hundred years, etc. The sun is a big driver of climate, but not so much with respect to sun spot cycles. The sun drives climate more through cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, tilt, and precession.
When the earth warms over time, as is happening now, plants thrive. More abundance of plants on earth increase CO2. Also oceans give up CO2 when warmed by the sun and a warmer atmosphere.

Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 1:42 pm


Bill Illis
Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 4:39 pm

That is a really good video above.
There is a part missing, however. Just how small these changes are in the net solar radiation received in the different parts of the Milankovitch cycles. There was a description of how small the changes are due to differing orbital circularity. But the same issue applies to all of the 3 (or 4) varying components of the Milankovitch cycles. They are all extremely small changes. Think of it like 200 kms. Pick a community 200 kms north of you and that is how much change occurs in solar radiation the cycles vary when all of them are combined together. Its really not enough to do anything.
Except when you live at 75N. Now 200 kms is the make or break factor in whether the snow melts out completely in the summer or not. Say your location is Eureka on Ellesmere Island. Now 200 kms difference in solar radiation in the summer means that your snow which normally melts out in early June doesn’t really get there until late August when the winter snows start to come back. If you live in Yellowknife at 62N, your snow still melts out completely in the summer regardless of where the cycle is. The sweet spot for the ice ages is 75N. Your snow on the ground or the sea ice in the bay either melts out completely in the summer or it doesn’t depending on Milankovitch. The ice ages start at 75N.
CO2 lags behind by 800 years or more. If you have 800 years of snow accumulation at 75N you have a growing glacier starting to move South and the ice-albedo feedback becomes a self-fulfilling loop that guarantees the ice will keep moving south. CO2 has no part in the ice ages at all.

Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 5:04 pm

CO2 has no part in the ice ages at all.

I think it does have a part, in fact it is an obvious part. As ice grows, there is less and less plant life. Also there will be less vibrant plant life in unfrozen cooler areas near the ice. An ice age would have an affect on the amount of CO2 overall on planet.

Reply to  Cryptid (@CardsFanTX)
November 28, 2014 10:02 pm

Thanks for the link. Excellent presentation. Also the proposed outcome is testable.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 27, 2014 7:27 pm

That is an amazing co-incidence.
I have noticed that when the sun is closer, it is warmer.
And that’s not all:- Without fail, it is always hotter in the daytime than at night, where I live.
But maybe Australia is different?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  toorightmate
November 27, 2014 10:26 pm

Australia is different.
Earth will be at perihelion on Sat, 03 Jan 2015 at 22:37 PST
We of the upright part of Earth will be freezing our butts off.
OZ folk, being upside down and maybe inside out will be warmer.
All this is very odd and seems not related to Sun closeness.
As this requires more thought – I’ll open another beer.

Reply to  toorightmate
November 28, 2014 5:45 am

Yup. Aphelion is summer in the northern hemisphere.
Sunrise, Sunset
Tmax, Tmin . . .

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  toorightmate
November 28, 2014 7:47 am

“Without fail, it is always hotter in the daytime than at night, where I live.”
Don’t know where you live, but that’s not always the case. I live about 80 miles north of Seattle. Last night it was in the 50s, today it will drop into the low 40s. It all depends on how the air masses move around. And, it’s supposed to be sunnier and colder this weekend.

Chris Thixton
Reply to  toorightmate
November 29, 2014 2:11 am

xyzzy, explain the earthquakes, from someone who lives a mere 80km from the the edge of the Pacific plate.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 27, 2014 8:53 pm

Wait until Willis gets his hands on it

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 27, 2014 9:09 pm

“The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities.”
Translation: The wiggles match!!
“However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component.”
Translation: Except when they don’t.

Robert B
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 28, 2014 6:56 pm

I was going to make this a new post but since we are talking about wiggles.
The difference between RSS and RSS(land only) is small and hence, noisy but there seems to be a correlation. Just a coincidence that the wiggles come close or maybe even an effect on the measurement?

Bob Smithton
Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 27, 2014 11:28 pm

very little information about how the statistical significance of the correlations was determined, only stating ‘Monte-Carlo’ methods against a red-noise background…there is no significance testing applied to that plot of the cross-correlation between the millennial components of SSN and T plotted. Considering the data are smoothed, and thus will display high levels of autocorrelation, it is entirely possible that the supposed correlations have arisen purely by chance and not from an underlying dynamical link

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 28, 2014 4:57 am

very little information about how the statistical significance of the correlations was determined, only stating ‘Monte-Carlo’ methods against a red-noise background…there is no significance testing applied to that plot of the cross-correlation between the millennial components of SSN and T plotted. Considering the data are smoothed, and thus will display high levels of autocorrelation, it is entirely possible that the supposed correlations have arisen purely by chance and not from an underlying dynamical link

Reply to  Bevan
November 28, 2014 5:52 am

I always liked Monte Carlo in principle. Someone had designed a game back around Y2k, and wanted me to analyze the distribution. Rather than doing it the IPCC way, I simply dealt out 200 hands and tabbed the results. Dead on and done in less than half the time, and “real” results.
The modeling guys don’t get that when you do these things from the bottom to to rather than top down, the slightest little inadvertent twitch plays statistical “crack-the-whip” with you results. It only works when you know all the factors. But when you don’t, only a top -down approach has a chance of making the grade.
Like I say, if you want to design an East-Front game, start with Heersgruppen and Glavcoms and work your way down. If you try to do it starting with Advance Squad Leader rules and a supercomputer, you are sunk before you start.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 28, 2014 7:34 am

What are the mechanisms by which the sun affects climate? It is not the changes in total irradiance.

Reply to  Hugh
November 28, 2014 10:29 am

TSI varies by 0.1% so it isn’t doing it directly. It might have indirect effects that we don’t understand yet. Then there is the UV portion of TSI which varies so wildly that you doubt it is doing it because the climate is way more stable than that. So unless the oceans act as a huge buffer (which is possible).
Then you have all the other components of TSI and which ones are cancelling or reenforcing each other’s effects.
In short we’ve got a long way to go before we understand how the various components of TSI affect climate directly and once we’ve got that then we need to adjust for all the indirect. We’ll be at this for a while yet.

Reply to  Hugh
November 28, 2014 10:40 am

The UV varies widely, but is so low in magnitude that any effect on climate has to be indirect. For one example, as incoming UV varies, the depth of the ionosphere varies by nearly an order of magnitude. Is this sufficient to alter the black body temperature of the sky? Or increase the optical depth of the atmosphere? The ionosphere very tenuous, but I don’t think we really know all there is to know about its interaction with terrestrial radiation at these depths and temperatures.

Reply to  Hugh
November 28, 2014 1:11 pm

Hugh, from what I have learned here as a layman, (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the magnetic plasma in solar wind and CMEs prevent cosmic radiation from aiding cloud formation, which appears to drive surface temperatures in both ways depending on the types and altitudes of clouds. When the 10.7 cm flux is high (usually corresponding with a high sunspot count), clouds are not as easily formed. This is important data that is missing from the models as I understand it.
(Again, this is what I have “come away with” and I may need a reality check)

David Chappell
Reply to  Hugh
November 28, 2014 9:22 pm

Simply by being there and shining. Take away the sun and we all go into the long goodnight.

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 28, 2014 11:09 am

Still behind the paywall. Maybe someone will set it loose.

george e. smith
Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 28, 2014 5:29 pm

So how do you count sunspots in ice layers ? Do their images get frozen in time? Sounds like a proxy guess to me.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  george e. smith
November 30, 2014 7:50 pm

Beryllium-10 isotope concentrations

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 28, 2014 7:01 pm

It doesn’t matter what controls the climate – what is important is who controls climate policy. It’s a knotty problem.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 29, 2014 9:49 pm

Gee, that’s surprising!
What is surprising is that actual climate science could get published in this benighted age of climate anti-science.

November 27, 2014 6:28 pm

Australia’s equivalent of the BBC, the ABC, is up in arms about an efficiency cut for their whole organisation is if they should be exempt from the general public service cuts. The ABC is full of religious cult warmists. When the protests started towards the cuts, the protesters were the Greens, the Socialist Alliance and other assorted radicals and activists. Not one conservative nor sceptic was present.
No wonder they keep pumping out warming scares. Some of their finer efforts are that sceptics should be jailed or locked in mental hospitals or that this is the warmest decade since( The Little Ice Age not included) records are kept. The warmist Bureau of Meteorology conveniently cuts off warmer periods, so the do loop of warming prophesy and action reinforces itself.

Reply to  Jack
November 27, 2014 9:03 pm

I’ve always maintained the ABC should be spun free as a self funding cooperative, so that ABC can be supported by those who love them, rather than relying on unwilling taxpayers.

Reply to  Jack
November 28, 2014 1:03 am

Everyone is moaning about the ABC cuts here, they keep saying the cut is AU$250million. It’s not. It’s AU$250m over 5 years, or AU$50m p/a. Out of an annual budget of AU$1.2BILLION! It is no way enough IMO, but it is a start.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Patrick
November 28, 2014 4:41 am

Just the same for the unloved and untrusted BBC. Ex Labour minister Purnell – appointed to job by mate with no competitive recruitment process – claiming no further cuts to salaries can be made so unless more money comes from taxpayers a station might have to be closed. Plenty of management to be got rid off first.

Fred from Canuckistan
Reply to  Patrick
November 28, 2014 5:28 am

Our much beloved Canadian Broadcorping Castration is the same, being the home base for Warmunists like David Suzuki. The AGW cult is firmly entrenched and the moderators and editors severely restrict any comments or presenters who have heretical views.

Reply to  Patrick
November 28, 2014 10:32 am

“Fred from Canuckistan” about the CBC. Yes but some of the better journalists still sneak through some interesting skeptic views on the old “Hot Type”, GeorgeS and Murphy’s rant about climategate is still a classic.

Reply to  Jack
November 28, 2014 7:47 am

Yep, and here in Canada we have the CBC. Same ideology, same $1B+ budget. And they don’t respond to FOIA requests claiming that answering questions like the salary of the executives would put them at a “competitive disadvantage”.

November 27, 2014 6:30 pm

Does anyone have an update on the Open Atmospheric Society?

November 27, 2014 6:37 pm

CO2 – temperature disparity
On 16 September 2012, the Arctic sea ice extent set a record minimum, since satellite
recording began in 1979, of 3.41 million sq. kms. [1]. Two years later, on 22 September
2014, the Antarctic sea ice extent set a record maximum of 20.11 million sq. kms. [2].
These events corroborate the trends in the satellite lower tropospheric temperature for
the Polar regions, latitudes 60 degrees to 85 degrees, available at Dr Roy Spencer’s web site
[3]. The data extends from December 1978 until October 2014, a period of 36 years. It shows
the North Polar region having had a rate of rise in average monthly temperature of 0.044096
deg C pa. while the South Polar regions had a rate of fall in temperature of 0.00014 deg C pa.
In contrast, data from the station closest to the North Pole at Alert, NW Canada, [4]
provides average monthly atmospheric CO2 measurements with a trend of + 1.673 ppm pa for
the period July 1975 to Dec, 2013. Data from the NOAA station at the South Pole [5] gave
an almost identical trend of +1.672 ppm pa for the recording period December 1978 to 2013.
The North Pole satellite temperature trend equates to a rise in temperature of 1.54336
deg C in 35 years while the Alert trend line equates to a rise in CO2 of 58.57 ppm or 17.39%.
The South Pole satellite temperature trend equates to a drop in temperature of 0.0049 deg C
in 35 year period while the NOAA data trend line equates to a rise in CO2 of 58.52 ppm or
17.47%. Trend line calculations are quoted here because of the obvious difference in
seasonal variation between the North and South Poles due to the large differences in land area
and vegetation cover which generates those variations.
Here we have clear evidence that not only does increasing atmospheric CO2
concentration not cause warming of the Earth’s surface, as exhibited by the South Polar
region, but the surface temperature is independent of a change in CO2. The IPCC claim of
increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration causing global warming is patently false.
[4] select files for Alert
Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist.
formerly: Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists,
Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Reply to  Bevan Dockery
November 27, 2014 7:30 pm

That explains why you have it all wrong.
You have to have degrees in Political Science and/or Basket Weaving to be an authority on this topic.

Reply to  toorightmate
November 28, 2014 1:30 am

Would that make you a Political Basket Case?

Kelvin Vaughan
Reply to  toorightmate
November 28, 2014 1:36 am

I’ve got a range of degrees to my name. I’must be an expert on every thing.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  toorightmate
November 28, 2014 3:56 am

There’s a degree of truth to all of this.

Reply to  toorightmate
November 28, 2014 6:00 am

I have a Masters in Occupy Wall Street (aka US History) from an Ivy League University.
It’s a start.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  toorightmate
November 28, 2014 10:23 am

A Ivy League University that didn’t teach grammar.
REPLY: The power the moderator is unlimited. (Until it isn’t.) Our best power is the power of edit. ~ Evan

george e. smith
Reply to  toorightmate
November 28, 2014 5:32 pm

Sorry but Kelvins are kelvin, not degrees.

Reply to  Bevan Dockery
November 28, 2014 1:43 am

You have the Polar figures above for the relative rates of change of CO2 concentration and Satellite lower tropospheric temperature. Now look at the Tropics.
The NOAA/ESRL station in the central Pacific, Latitude 0 deg, Longitude -155 deg, is shown on the web site for the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases with values for the monthly mean CO2 between September 1987 and January 2012. The rate of change for the CO2 concentration in that time frame was 1.7176 ppm per year. The satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the Tropics: Ocean in that time had a rate of increase of 0.005992 deg C per year.
That is, the CO2 concentration increased at a greater rate, 2.7%, than either the South Pole or Alert, the North Pole proxy, yet the satellite temperature increased 40 times faster than at the South Polar region but was only 14% of the rate at the North Polar region.
Surely these figures totally discredit the IPCC pronouncements. Furthermore there remain many hundreds of data listings on the WDCGG web site that could be analysed.

Reply to  Bevan Dockery
November 28, 2014 2:31 am

Agreed, however have you noticed that lately the alarmists are pointing out the inconsistency in the North/South Pole Temp in relation to CO2 suggests the need for more funding for “their” research because climate change in geographical pockets could be much worse than global temperature changes. God help us. I don’t know how they continue to get published in Peer-reviewed journals when their new hypotheses are stem from flawed assumptions, or should I say: what they would call, concensus.

November 27, 2014 7:07 pm
Nasa reporting on a paper regarding a “sharp edged” barrier to high speed electrons found within the Van Allen Belt. The paper was based on data collected by the Van Allen Probe mission. Pretty cool.

Reply to  DesertYote
November 27, 2014 9:32 pm

That would put the barrier very close to the outer edge of the ionosphere, at times. We don’t know a lot. The science isn’t settled.

EdA the New Yorker
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 28, 2014 3:51 pm

It seems that John Kerry was way ahead of us on this one. The Kerry model, made public in Jakarta, revealed the existence of such a barrier in his unique climate model. Noting, “The science is certain,” he continued,
” This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this. Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of our atmosphere.”
http://watts up with
Perhaps NASA will dub it, “The Kerry layer.”

November 27, 2014 7:16 pm

Excellent essay by Patrick Moore …
Reprinted from one of the few MSM outlets in Australia that are not alarmist driven.

Reply to  Truthseeker
November 28, 2014 7:00 am

Tallbloke continues to have one of the best climate sites on the internet.

Global cooling
Reply to  Truthseeker
November 28, 2014 11:18 pm

Patrick Moore has excellent talking points: Optimum CO2 level is 1500 ppm, much more than current 400 ppm.
The whole debate is not about climate change. It is about money and politics. What should we do, if we were really worried about changing climate? What are the most effective actions? I would select nuclear power and capturing CO2 from big Chinese coal power plants. Quite the contrary to Obama.

Reply to  Truthseeker
November 29, 2014 6:56 am

Thanks for that Truthseeker and Tallbloke – excellent article from Patrick Moore. So much sense in so few words. Pure gems of common sense and great analytical insight at the same time (such as the four-reason breakdown/analysis of why climate change has become such a huge political force).

Bob Diaz
November 27, 2014 7:24 pm

According to the latest scientific models, Happy Thanksgiving. We’ll need additional funding to show a link between a Happy Thanksgiving and increased CO2. ;-))

November 27, 2014 7:30 pm

Yesterday, I announced that I had used a pseudonym to gain access to the blog HotWhopper, so that I could confront Sou (Miriam O’Brien) on her home field. See the post that follows. It includes links to an archived version of the post at HotWhopper.
I’m considering writing a post about the experience.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 27, 2014 8:36 pm

I think the money quote is this one …
Links to denier sites redacted. See the comment policy. Sou
Says it all really.

Reply to  Truthseeker
November 28, 2014 2:49 am

“Links to denier sites redacted. See the comment policy. Sou”
Yes, that does say it all. Unfortunately she ain’t the only one who is afraid their readers will follow links to sites that disagree with “the party line”.

Reply to  Truthseeker
November 28, 2014 10:41 am

We should organize a spam party some day. Everyone login to Sou’s site and post your favorite skeptic link. They will all be different because we will all have different ones and if we get the source not just WUWT it would be impossible to block.

Bill 2
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 28, 2014 12:15 am

You are obsessed with her and kind of crazy.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Bill 2
November 28, 2014 1:24 am

Like a fox!

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Bill 2
November 28, 2014 2:08 am

Otters like foxes ;-?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Bill 2
November 28, 2014 3:58 am

……. have you ever been to FurAffinity? 😛

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 28, 2014 2:47 am

Bob, I hope you do write up this episode and publish it. I know I would enjoy reading it

In the Real World
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 28, 2014 3:23 am

Would that William Connelly be that same one who was altering anything climate related on Wiki.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 28, 2014 4:12 am

I don’t get why you bothered

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 28, 2014 8:05 am

Bob, you really should try to let it, it is definitely not worth it and it is sad that you waste our energy on someone like this.

Tis Knobsdale
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 28, 2014 10:05 am

As I’m enjoying my morning fresh cup of grinds, please bear with me, as I’m not sure if my eyes deceive me. Just to confirm,as I take another sip; you spawned a faux username for use in the commentary of another blog, so you could boast about it on this blog, and further, to boast about how you are thinking of boasting about it again with a follow up boast about it?
How maniacal and deranged are you compadre? Is it possible that you actually( if I had an italics icon, I would make it rain italics all over the adverb actually) are under the impression that any learned soul cares about the whims of an uncredentialed hobbyist such as yourself?

Reply to  Tis Knobsdale
November 28, 2014 5:44 pm

Hmmm, but italics are possible.

Robert B
Reply to  Tis Knobsdale
November 29, 2014 2:21 am

I wonder what you would call someone who bites heads off of kittens? You keep going off like that at the drop of a hat and there are not many names left to throw at people.

Reply to  Tis Knobsdale
November 29, 2014 7:07 am

That is so funny.
Good that you know what adverbs are though.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 28, 2014 10:36 am

It’s very unpleasant for me to observe you doing this. This is the opposite of using the scientific method. Nobody expects you to be able to objectively see anything that another person attacking you is seeing or to not be bothered by it but responding in this manner is unprofessional.
It bothers me when people pretend to be somebody else or change their name at any forum for whatever reason. If they were banned or blocked from access at that forum by the moderator or person in charge, regardless of the reason, legit or not, then you should abide by that forums rules.
Sneaking in to confront the person that banned you is providing even more reason for them to justify banning you in the first place and will only provide additional negative fodder for the groups which come to that forum to share similar views and not have invasions from trolls.
“so that I could confront Sou (Miriam O’Brien) on her home field”
You were being a troll.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 28, 2014 4:04 pm

Bob Tisdale,
ahhh man, not a wise move with the ‘wuwt-fan-4-6 years’ undercover stuff

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 29, 2014 7:37 am

What am I missing here? Hotwhopper and that mean old bat seem insignificant. Why waste the effort?

November 27, 2014 7:42 pm

Amazing that Mosher and others never explain the futility of trying to reduce co2 emissions. As explained here from the joint 2014 Royal Society and National Academy of Science report.
They explain that we could stop all human co2 emissions today and we would not see any change in temp or co2 levels for thousands of years. Of course Flannery admitted the same thing to Andrew Bolt after he pressured him on the same question.
So why aren’t the public told about these admissions? IOW the mitigation of their so called CAGW is the greatest con and fraud in history.

Reply to  Neville
November 28, 2014 6:08 am

Mosher and others never explain the futility of trying to reduce co2 emissions.
I don’t think Mosh is taking that approach. He thinks the current record is accurate (I don’t) but even though he does, he is still a skeptic regarding the projections and that is where the IPCC/CMIP3&5train goes badly off the track.
We should maybe spend less time picking on the Mosh and more time on the critical issue of feedbacks. He can be gruff, but that’s just his way. He has steered me into areas I would not have gone, and has chipped away at my own confirmation bias. I therefore regard him as quite valuable.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 1:06 pm

So Evan to you believe that the RS and NAS point 20 is correct or not? Certainly ice cores sometimes show long lags for co2 following temp changes. But are those core records correct?
The lag for co2 was about 6,000 years when the Eemian dropped into the last interglacial according to ice cores. But is that correct, I’m just asking?

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 1:10 pm

Sorry 2nd last line should read “dropped into the last glacial” GRRRR.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 2:20 pm

So Evan to you believe that the RS and NAS point 20 is correct or not? Certainly ice cores sometimes show long lags for co2 following temp changes. But are those core records correct?
This is what I think. (Until Next Tuesday, probably.) I think oceanic outgassing during the interglacials is ~100 ppm, bringing CO2 to ~270 – 280 ppm. in our current “sawed-off” specimin. Now, the interglacial swing is ~10C+, so that dwarfs the CO2 effect. The primary positive feedback in the MillieCycles is albedo, and that is a major (possibly THE major) effect. CO2 comes after the warming begins (as a result of warming) and produces a knock-on effect of ~1C and slows the cooling a bit when the next ice age begins.
This is coincides well with Arrhenius — without the positive feedbacks appended by the IPCC. But that is only lukewarming. In a way, the IPCC (AR5) and I have a meeting of the minds: Their low end is my high end.

Reply to  Neville
November 28, 2014 2:18 pm

Yeah but just think about, if we give stop all CO2 emissions today, after the regional and global famines, economic dispruptions leading to World wars, collapse of modern civilization and so on, we’ll be good as gold in 3-4 thousand years.

Reply to  Alx
November 28, 2014 3:11 pm

Alx why stop at 3 to 4 thousand years , why not 6,000 or more ? If it took the lag in co2 ( at the end of the Eemian) 6,000 years to start to drop from say 280ppm, then how much longer would it take to drop from 400ppm and even return to 280ppm and then 180ppm?
I thank Evan for his response but I’d hoped he and others might have given their views on the ice core accuracy etc. Of course if Murray Salby is correct then all bets are off.

November 27, 2014 7:59 pm

Solar-Climate Link Since Mid-20th Century
By Girma Orssengo, PhD
In this essay, I demonstrate the 11-year solar cycle signal in the HadCRUT4 dataset for the global mean temperature since mid-20th century shown in Figure 1, confirming the result of Camp and Tung ( 2007), which was done for the NCEP dataset.
Figure 1. Correlation between sunspot number (sidc-ssn) and global mean temperature (hadcrut4gl) since mid-20th century. Source:
The most important point to note when trying to extract the 11-year solar cycle signal from the global mean temperature data is that they describe different quantities. The solar cycle is an instantaneous energy input into the earth but the global mean temperature represents an accumulated energy in the earth stored in its land and oceans. As a result, to find the solar signal in the global mean temperature data, its secular trend (accumulated energy) and its multidecadal oscillation (due to redistribution of heat within the ocean) must be removed. If these data are not removed, they give spurious divergence between global mean temperature and sunspot numbers after the 1970s.
The secular trend and the multidecadal oscillation in the annual global mean surface temperature data can be represented by the 25-year moving average as shown in Figure 2. The 25-year moving average curve has a coefficient of determination of 80% with the annual global mean surface temperature, which means it explains 80% of the variation.
Figure 2. The climate signal (secular trend and multidecadal oscillation) can be represented by the 25-year (300 months) moving average of the annual global mean surface temperature. Source:
The data left after removing the 25-year moving average of the global mean temperature is given by the “isolate” function in WoodForTrees and it is in this data that the 11-year solar cycle signal is expected to be found. Figure 3 shows the global mean temperature data after removing its secular trend and multidecadal oscillation. Figure 3 also shows an interannual variability of ± 0.2 deg C in the annual global mean surface temperature since 1860, which indicates that ranking them based on variations less than 0.2 deg C is statistically meaningless. Figure 3 also shows that this variability was greater in the late 1870s than in the late 20th century.
To obtain the solar cycle signal, in addition to the secular trend and the muldtidecadal oscillation that must be removed from the global mean temperature using “isolate:300”, we need also remove the short term oscillation of ENSO variability, which has an average period of about 4 years. The ENSO should be removed because it is due to the distribution of heat within the earth system. This can be done by using the 4-year (48 months, “mean:48”) moving average of the data shown in Figure 3 to obtain the sought solar cycle signal in the global mean temperature shown in Figure 1.
Note that in the years with strong volcanic activity in the early 1990s in Figure 1, the global mean temperature decrease leads the decrease in solar activity. Note also that part of the increase in global mean temperature in each solar cycle shown in Figure 1 warms the oceans and the accumulated heat gives the globe its secular mean temperature trend.
How the increase in sunspot numbers indicates increase in solar energy has been described in Lean et al (1995):

Solar irradiance varies during the Schwabe cycle because bright solar faculae and dark sunspots modulate the Sun’s radiation. Both faculae and sunspots are magnetic phenomena that occur more frequently during times of high solar activity. At the visible wavelengths that dominate total solar radiative output, facular emission near solar activity maximum exceeds the corresponding sunspot deficit by a factor of 1.5, causing a net total irradiance increase.
Figure 3. The global mean surface temperature data after removing its secular trend and its multidecadal oscillation. It is in this data that the 11-year solar cycle signal is expected to be found. Source:
Figure 1 shows the sun-climate link since mid-20th century that the IPCC claims the warming was anthropogenic. However, as this figure shows, the global mean temperature changes in PHASE with the 11-year solar cycle. In addition, the magnitudes of the global mean temperatures are approximately proportional to the sunspot numbers as indicated by the simultaneous peaks in the two variables. For example, both the peak global mean surface temperature & solar activity for solar cycle 20 in the 1970s were less than their corresponding values for cycle 19 in the 1960s. The probability of finding the correlation shown in Figure 1 by chance between the two datasets for the full five solar cycles 19 to 23, from 1954 to 2008, is about 0.1%.
As global mean surface temperature changes whenever solar activity changes, Figure 1 shows solar variability explains all of the 20th century warming. Note that this warming of the earth’s surface by about 0.12 deg C in each 11-year solar cycle is roughly cumulative (roughly because heat is lost from the surface to the colder water and land underneath and is used to warm the arctic), so instead of giving the cumulative 1.1 deg C in the nine solar cycles of the twenty century, it gives the observed secular global surface warming of only 0.6 deg C.
A convincing evidence for anthropogenic global warming would have been to see in Figure 1 a divergence between the global mean surface temperature and solar activity. However, this hasn’t not been the case. As a result, we may conclude that the cause of the observed global warming since mid-20th century was solar, not anthropogenic.

Kelvin Vaughan
Reply to  Girma
November 28, 2014 1:51 am

Or it could be that what affects the Sun also affects Earth’s temperature. A change in the field which the Solar system occupies.

Reply to  Girma
November 28, 2014 7:04 am


November 27, 2014 8:05 pm

Keeling et al (1995):

…the decadal variations in temperature,
and possibly in precipitation, almost directly correlate
with the CO2 concentration itself. If these decadal correlations
are significant, it seems evident that the onset of a climate
change, such as a warming trend, has a measurable influence on
the atmospheric CO2 concentration

Environmental factors appear to have imposed larger changes
on the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 than did changes in
fossil fuel combustion rates, suggesting uncertainty in projecting
future increases in atmospheric CO2 solely on the basis of anticipated
rates of industrial activity

Reply to  Girma
November 28, 2014 11:34 am

The Letter to Nature of Keeling ea. is about the year by year and decadal variation in the CO2 rate of change, not about the cause of the increase itself, which is clearly human according to him.
The 2-3 years variation is dominated by vegetation (mainly in the tropics) as result of El Niño and Pinatubo because of temperature and drought changes which influence the growth and decay of tropical forests and debris. That can be seen in the opposite fluctuations of the CO2 and δ13C rates of change, here up to 2012:
The longer term rate of change seems to have periods of standstill and periods of increase with no clear connection to temperature, but the average didn’t change much over the past 100 years: still between 50-55% of the human emissions:

Robert B
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
November 29, 2014 2:35 am

What? The longer term rate of change seems to have periods of standstill and periods of increase with no clear connection to temperature

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
November 29, 2014 11:26 am

Robert, by adding an arbitrary bias and factor one can match any slope on earth with another slope, which doesn’t prove any causation.
the short term (2-3 years) variability in the CO2 rate of change is largely caused by the short term variability in temperature rate of change:
That is the effect of temperature on the (tropical) forests as the opposite changes of CO2 and δ13C rate of change show, including the lag of CO2 changes after T changes, which remains for the derivatives.
But vegetation is a net sink of CO2 over longer term, thus not the cause of the CO2 increase over time or the slope in the CO2 derivative (which is zero to slightly negative for vegetation uptake).
Thus variability and slope are caused by different processes, where only the first is certainly temperature related.
Moreover, look at the non-biased graph:
temperatures were slightly decreasing 1960-1975 while the CO2 rate of change increased. In the period 1976-2000 temperature increased rapidly, but the CO2 rate of change didn’t and after 2000 both trends are flat…

Robert B
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
November 29, 2014 12:51 pm

I’m not pointing out the slope. The one year mean has been offset and scaled to be better able to see how well the derivative of the CO2 concentration follows the temperature. Both are 12 month means. I call BS that you didn’t see the peaks at 1998, mid 90s late 80s and early 70s.

Robert B
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
November 29, 2014 12:58 pm

“by adding an arbitrary bias and factor one can match any slope on earth with another slope”
No you can not.
Go make them look the same by adjusting the mean, offset and scale.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
November 30, 2014 6:56 am

Robert, we both agree that the short term (2-3 years) response of the CO2 rate of change and the temperature rate of change are directly connected: CO2 (and opposite δ13C) follows the movements of temperature with a 90 deg. lag. That includes the 1992 Pinatubo and the 1998 El Niño responses.
We differ in opinion about the connection between the longer term (decadal) changes in temperature. Despite falling temperatures in the period (1945-)1960-1975, the rate of change of CO2 increased. In the period 1976-2000 temperature increased but the CO2 rate of change was about flat.
Because you added an offset and a factor in your WFT plot, you added a slope to the plot which masks the difference in real (partial) slopes between temperature and CO2 rate of change…
Go make them look the same by adjusting the mean, offset and scale.
That is exactly where it goes wrong. You can match the slopes or you can match the amplitudes, but as that are independent processes, only with some luck you can match both at the same time. Have a look at the slopes of your original plot including the trend lines..
The slopes don’t completely match, but the amplitudes are more or less the same.
But if you change the offset and factor to match the slopes, then the amplitudes don’t match anymore.
Which is the result of trying to match two independent processes (one which causes the variability, the other causing the slope) with one common factor…

November 27, 2014 8:09 pm

I have a subject to present for discussion.
It seems to obvious to mention, but in geological time frames, fossils fuels are a renewable energy source. No CO2 comes in from space, and none escapes to space so we have in effect a closed system.
A glance at history will show that since the end of the very active volcanic period we have been gradually losing ground in the Co2 theater. Is the END going to happen with the steady, slow decline in CO2? At some point plant life will struggle and die
Can we survive this event? Can we release the stored solar energy quickly enough to forestall this event?
I personally do no believe co2’s effect on temperature is worth consideration unless it’s ppm’s decrease below our present dangerously low levels, but I am very concerned that we are not capable of keeping CO2 from sinking below this critical level of sustainable life.
What, if any, are your thoughts?

Reply to  latecommer2014
November 27, 2014 9:08 pm

Without intervention I would expect it to balance out at a low level, with autotrophs dying back to a level where CO2 did not decline anymore

Reply to  latecommer2014
November 27, 2014 9:42 pm

🙂 I think you are on to something.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  latecommer2014
November 28, 2014 3:59 am

I’m thinking it is time to wake up my wife and head off to the greenhouse…… wait, what was your question again?

Reply to  latecommer2014
November 28, 2014 6:11 am

If we need to, we’ll make more! We are an adaptable lot, us unfurry apes.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 7:29 am

Just cook limestone (plenty of that) & make as much CO2 as earth needs. Cement would be a useful by-product.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  latecommer2014
November 28, 2014 8:59 am

I think you’re right. As the earth gradually cools, tectonic plate action will decline, there will be a decline volcanic eruptions recycling gases into the atmosphere, and complex life will gradually die off.
“This is the complete carbon cycle: rainwater removes CO2 from the atmosphere and puts it in the crust, and volcanic action releases CO2 from the crust and puts it back in the atmosphere.
What happens on Venus? Venus has no water! Early in its history Venus may have had water, but it is too close to the Sun to retain it. When water molecules rise high in an atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation split the water molecules into its component gases, oxygen and hydrogen, and the lighter hydrogen molecules escape into space. While Earth’s lower atmosphere is about one percent water vapor (although it seems much higher in the humid Louisiana summers), the upper atmosphere, where ultraviolet radiation can penetrate, is very dry: a cold trap, a combination of pressure and temperature, prevents water vapor from rising high in the earth’s atmosphere. Venus has a cold trap, too, but because Venus is closer to the Sun its cold trap is much higher in the atmosphere and any Venusian water molecules rise high enough to be broken apart by ultraviolet radiation.
Therefore the carbon cycle is incomplete on Venus: without water, CO2 cannot be removed from the atmosphere. Venus does have volcanoes, however. Radar mappings of Venus by interplanetary probes indicate volcano-like mountains, and there is other evidence for volcanoes as well. The atmosphere of Venus is full of sulfur dioxide and sulfur particulates. Sulfur and sulfur dioxide is highly reactive and cannot remain long in an atmosphere; therefore something (volcanoes) must be regularly replenishing the sulfur. This theory is bolstered by data from interplanetary probes, which have detected large fluctuations in the sulfur content of the Venusian atmosphere, as well as radio signals reminiscent of lightning–and lightning is often found in volcanic plumes.
And Mars? The carbon cycle is also broken on Mars, but opposite to Venus. Mars has no active volcanoes to replenish the CO2 in its atmosphere. We know Mars once had running water—we can still see billion-year-old river beds where water once ran—and the water may still be there, locked up in the ice caps and in permafrost beneath the surface. And it seems likely that Mars has CO2 still locked up in its crust, deposited there billions of years ago by the action of water. If you could release that CO2 you could warm up Mars again. Indeed this is a major premise of science fiction stories about terraforming Mars; an excellent example is Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy.”

Reply to  latecommer2014
November 28, 2014 11:29 am

During the Permian there was about 30 million years of low CO2 and our current 20 million is similar. In between there was 250 million years with CO2 around 1000 PPM. It has gotten worse since Panama and South America joined 2.5 million years ago. The colder and longer (around 1 million years ago it went from 40k to 100k) ice ages take more CO2 out keeping us dangerously low.
One option is to geo-engineer by opening up Panama and letting the oceans mix again (not my favorite) and the other is we simply produce more CO2 either from terrestrial resources or from external ones to keep us above that 150 PPM extinction level.

Reply to  latecommer2014
November 28, 2014 11:45 am

It seems that there was a quite stable equilibrium between temperature and CO2 in the past few million years (800,000 years in ice cores, longer but less accurate in foramins): about 8 ppmv/K where during glacials the levels were very low: around 180 ppmv and around 300 ppmv during interglacials. This equilibrium probably comes from the (deep) oceans, as there is little change in the δ13C ratio over the glacial-interglacial transitions.
That most plants survived the 180 ppmv maybe because near ground over land, CO2 levels in average are ~40 ppmv higher than in the bulk of the atmosphere, the latter is what is measured in the ice cores.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
November 28, 2014 5:41 pm

You also have a much reduced demand for CO2 by the considerable reduction in plant cover with the ice, dry air and cooer weather south of the ice.

Reply to  latecommer2014
November 28, 2014 2:24 pm

I wonder if government leaders, corporate executives and leading Hollywood actors will end up hoarding huge underground tanks of CO2 for their personal use. Kind of like they hoarded gasoline during the gas crisis.

November 27, 2014 8:21 pm

anyone care to comment on the viability of this?
27 Nov: Science Alert: BEC CREW: New superconductor-powered wind turbines could hit Australian shores in five years
Australian scientists are developing wind turbines that are one-third the price and 1,000 times more efficient than anything currently on the market to install along the country’s windy and abundant coast.
Developed by a team at the Institute for Superconducting and Electronic Materials at the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, the wind turbines are a significant improvement on current technology…
“In our design there is no gear box, which right away reduces the size and weight by 40 percent,” said lead researcher and materials scientist Shahriar Hossain. “We are developing a magnesium diboride superconducting coil to replace the gear box. This will capture the wind energy and convert it into electricity without any power loss, and will reduce manufacturing and maintenance costs by two thirds.”…
The team estimates that their superconductor wind turbines will cost just $3-5 million each to build, because by next year, the magnesium diboride coil will cost just $1 per metre to manufacture…
VIDEO: Here’s Hossain talking about their research…

Reply to  pat
November 27, 2014 9:46 pm

Great idea! Hope it works! The question is: Will it be developed and sold on its own merits? Will the firm developing this new wind turbine be able to produce it economically and will it be sold to the wind industry at a profit? And last but not least: Is this a subsidy free venture? Or is this just a new scheme designed to milk the public purse?
There are probably dozens of other questions that need to be asked. I have just scratched the surface.

Reply to  PeterK
November 28, 2014 6:13 am

They may be referring to funding.

Reply to  pat
November 27, 2014 9:46 pm

1000 times more efficient? So instead of just getting. say, 60% efficiency, they can get 60,000%? My BS meter just wrapped the needle around the post. I’ve never seen it do that before except for 0bama.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 27, 2014 10:45 pm

I agree. Maybe they meant 10%, getting them up to about 49%. Maximal achievable extraction of wind power is 59% according to Betz’s Law.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 27, 2014 10:53 pm

Sounds like the old TV commercial “SAVE UP TO 100% OR MORE!” Or, more recently Obama’s comment that he would campaign in all 57 states. I would shop anywhere that would let me save more than 100%. I would get the product free and then receive an additional bit of cash in my pocket. Now that sounds like a deal. Imagine if we could save up to 1000 times or 100,000 %.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 27, 2014 11:00 pm

Yo ditto

Mike McMillan
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 28, 2014 2:43 am

They may be referring to funding.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  pat
November 28, 2014 12:03 am

Hmm, note the statements ” We are developing a” “because by next year the magnesium diboride coil will cost just $1 per meter to manufacture” And of course the web site says “Could hit australian shores in five year. Hmmm five year lag? almost ready for production. Hmm wonder if these folks own shares in mag mining.

Vince Causey
Reply to  pat
November 28, 2014 1:33 am

The sub title of the article does indeed say 1000 times more efficient, but this claim appears nowhere in the text itself. The only allusion made to efficiency is the claim that the superconducting coils offer no electrical resistance compared to conventional coils that loose about 10% of the power due to resistance. The main benefit appears to be the cost, which is claimed to come down from $15m to $3m per turbine.

Reply to  pat
November 28, 2014 3:34 am

Er… magnesium diboride becomes a superconductor at a temperture of 39 K (-234 C). So, while there won’t be any need for a gearbox in these superconductor wind turbines, there will be a need for a cryocooler to keep the necessary parts at superconducting temperatures. Will that be economically and technically practical? (Note: the Hubble Space Telescope has a cryocooler for some of its instruments, and obviously that has to work reliably for many years without maintenance).

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Macklin
November 28, 2014 12:38 pm

Okay got it. -234C to get it to work. Another university engineering department shooting for a grant to work on this? Using “green” as a lockpick to the funding treasure chest? So they need a cooling system to get the coil to hold a current. Or perhaps they just need a new beer cooler.
Researching the applications and limits for a superconductor like this one falls within the legitimate sphere of activities of a university engineering department. They may find something useful and the little handle- turners may learn something.

Reply to  pat
November 28, 2014 4:17 am

MgB2 loses superconductivity above 39K (-234C) so some form of efficient cooling will be required . The article does not make it clear how this will be supplied .

William Hudson
Reply to  mikewaite
November 28, 2014 5:45 am

The cryogenic cooling will be powered by the STOR system co-located with the turbine. Which turns out to be a very large diesel generator. If there is any power left over, it can run the high-power lights keeping the solar systems running at night. Until the general public run out of money, that is.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  pat
November 28, 2014 6:35 am

Still need the right sort of wind.

Reply to  pat
November 28, 2014 10:45 am

Notice what they DON’T say. Phrasing something a “X times more efficient” has no obvious meaning –
they make NO claims about the windmills output and the fact that the wind turbine itself costs “X percent” less doesn’t tell how much the windmill will cost to errect. Most of the cost of a windmill, as I recall, is the structure and the process of errecting the turbine, not the cost of the turbine. This statment has all of the earmarks of a misleading advertisement – it doesn’t actually provide any information that would make me enthusiastic. And the fact that no cost/output claims are made makes me even more skeptical.Of course, the biggest problem with windmills is their unreliability, which all this does nothing to mitigate.

Reply to  pat
November 28, 2014 11:35 am

Perhaps the “1000 times more efficient” is a dollars to output power measurement? That would make more sense as the current generation of windmills is pretty shabby (IMHO).
Now how do we store the energy in a cheap long term way? I’ve seen pumped hydro and the railcars moved up a hill but both are geographically limited. Some breakthrough in ultracaps/batteries would be nice right about now.
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading.

Its not CO2
November 27, 2014 8:29 pm

The original NASA energy diagram showed only net energy flows, without implying that radiation from the atmosphere transferred thermal energy to the surface, which it doesn’t wherever the surface is warmer. Because they kept the non-radiative figures constant when they then added back radiation (and an extra radiative flux out of the surface as well) the thermal energy transfers by conduction and evaporation were reduced in percentage terms.
Never-the-less, going back to the net energy diagrams we had …
(a) radiation always transferring thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere, day and night – correct.
(b) evaporation always transferring thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere, day and night – correct.
(c) conduction and rising air always transferring thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere, day and night – incorrect.
(d) the Sun transferring thermal energy of about 163W/m^2 into the surface by day – correct.
Now the problem is that, even if the surface got warmed as much as a true blackbody, that solar flux would only produce a mean temperature of about -35C.
So there’s a lot of missing thermal energy that must be going into the surface in order for there to be energy balance and the observed temperatures. This is even more obvious on Venus.
Any particular location on the equator of Earth (or Venus) usually warms by day and cools by night. So we can assume that the warming is due to energy from the Sun, but it is not all by radiation. So we must have some conduction the other way (into the surface) during the day. The big question is: “How do we reconcile thermal energy transfers from colder regions in the troposphere (that have absorbed incident solar radiation) into a warmer surface with the laws of physics?” That is what I have explained, along with only one other author who independently came to the same understanding and explanation that I did.
You need firstly to understand that the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us a state of thermodynamic equilibrium will (tend to) evolve. That state has maximum entropy and no unbalanced energy potentials. This leads us to conclude that the mean sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous. Thus we have a temperature gradient when we have thermodynamic equilibrium.
Now I stress that it is a state of equilibrium. So if there is a change due to new absorption of thermal energy, then there will be a propensity to restore thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated temperature gradient. This restoring process may well involve conduction and diffusion at the molecular level which is actually transferring thermal energy up the sloping thermal plane to warmer regions and – wait for it – into the warmer surface from the cooler atmosphere. Radiation can’t do this – only non radiative processes can because they involve molecules which are affected by gravity.
So there you have it. The temperature gradient in effect “props up” the surface temperature – not back radiation. Hence the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture is false.

Reply to  Its not CO2
November 27, 2014 9:18 pm

Venus doesn’t warm by day and cool by night, there is no diurnal temperature change between poles and the equator, or day and night.
Venus very high temperature comes gravity/thermal/atmospheric mass, (adiabatic lapse rate)

Its not CO2
Reply to  stuartlarge
November 27, 2014 9:29 pm

The Venus surface does warm and cool by about ±5 degrees for any particular point on the equator. The variation is between 732K and 737K. How could such a point possibly not cool a little during 4 months of darkness? Yes you are right in one sense about the energy flow into the surface from the cooler troposphere having something to do with gravity, rather than radiation from the cooler troposphere. Now you need to think about precisely how the required thermal energy actually gets into the hotter surface (by non-radiative processes) from the less-hot troposphere. In fact the Sun’s radiation can only raise the temperature in higher regions of the atmosphere that are at temperatures below about 400K, so the thermal energy has to make its way down from there over the course of 4 months of sunlight.

Reply to  stuartlarge
November 28, 2014 12:15 pm

Probe Venera Venera 7 and 8 confirmed the previous pressure measurements on the surface to give a pressure equal to 90 atm. The first of them landed on the dark hemisphere, where the stated temperature at ground + 474 ° C. The second one landed on a daily hemisphere also measured temperature at 470 ° C. These results indicate a rapid circulation.
Venus has a very weak magnetic field. Braid her magnetosphere is about 10 times thinner than Earth’s. This fact allows the particles of the solar wind mixing of the upper layers of the atmosphere.
At one rotation around its own axis Venus needs a 243 Earth days.

Reply to  Its not CO2
November 27, 2014 11:40 pm

Your Doug cotton aren’t you?

November 27, 2014 8:48 pm

Earlier this week I decided to go to my local blood-donation center and give a pint (I have A- so the vampires call me on a regular basis). While the nice lady was taking my temperature and other metrics, she asked what I like to do. I responded that I frequent the WUWT site to review climate-blog chatter. She responded, “That’s interesting, what is that site again?” obviously being courteous to a donor.
I then asked her a question I ask a lot of people, “What is your estimate of the amount of CO2 in the Air?” I might give them a range like, “5%, 10%, 20%, 40%?” to ponder, she answered – “it must be around 40%”. It’s surprising how little people generally know that the real answer is .04% (simple round-off here) and I hold up my hand with 4 fingers extended and my thumb folded over (for the “point-zero” part). People are usually stunned at this metaphorical answer. I then politely ask, “How can .04% completely overwhelm the other 99.96% of the Atmosphere?” I can then see the wheels in their mind starting to churn, ‘mission accomplished’ I silently say to myself.
If the person is more curious, I then ask, “How can the mass of the .04% (CO2) also overwhelm the entire Atmosphere and the top 2 meters of the entire Earth’s surface (the surface does “breath”, trees, grass and bushes depend on it)?” Sometimes they respond, “That would be impossible.” …. Ummm… Yup…
For all of you out there who are looking for a “good way” to help your fellow-man, give some blood, someone else may continue to live-on after they recover from their personal struggles. They will “Give Thanks” to you in their prayers.

Reply to  ChipMonk
November 28, 2014 12:08 am

“How can .04% completely overwhelm the other 99.96% of the Atmosphere?” I can then see the wheels in their mind starting to churn, ‘mission accomplished’ I silently say to myself.
You’ve incorrectly explained the physics to someone who knows even less than you do. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you do the skeptic side no favours by getting it wrong. I suggest some reading:

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 28, 2014 4:23 am

I disagree with you. It has more do to with the heat content (SH) of the atmosphere which has little to do with GHGs. PPM of atmospneric content is going to do very little. Talk to me when the atmospheric weight doubles and the constituents of the atmosphere change by 10 %.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 28, 2014 11:03 pm

Alex November 28, 2014 at 4:23 am
I disagree with you. It has more do to with the heat content (SH) of the atmosphere which has little to do with GHGs.
Either you didn’t read the articles, or you didn’t understand them. But if you want to learn something, will refer you to an actual experiment:
If you will bother to read the results of the experiment by Heinz Hug, you’ll see that the effects of a change in GHG concentration is directly measurable. You’ll probably get all excited about Hugs conclusion that the effects are over stated though. At the top of the article is a link to a zip file of criticisms of Hugs experiment. Read them. Then go back and read the articles by Ira Glickstein, one of the most qualified writers to ever grace this site. The argument doesn’t reduce to heat content, it has nearly nothing to do with heat content at all. It is about energy flux which is NOT HEAT CONTENT.

Vince Causey
Reply to  ChipMonk
November 28, 2014 1:40 am

It is great that you are making the effort to inform people. However, the suggestion that 0.04% can’t do anything is incorrect. I think people would be astounded to learn how much higher CO2 levels were in the past. Maybe a revelation that during the time of the dinosaurs it was around 2,000 ppm compared to 400 ppm today would get people thinking.

Reply to  Vince Causey
November 28, 2014 2:40 am

“… Maybe a revelation that during the time of the dinosaurs it was around 2,000 ppm compared to 400 ppm today would get people thinking.”
Since we have been reliably told by the authoritative IPCC that CO2 levels much above 600 ppm will burn the earth to a crisp, I can only conclude that all life ended on earth when CO2 levels were at 2,000 ppm. Now we know what happened to the dinosaurs. (the unicorns went at the same time I hear)

Reply to  Vince Causey
November 28, 2014 9:48 am

Well, wasn’t the earth much warmer 100 million years ago?

Reply to  Vince Causey
November 28, 2014 12:46 pm

I always love to ask “what is the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?” and the reply is almost alway “CO2”. When I tell them that it is water vapor they give me quizzical looks and say “really?”. I assure them it is and then tell them that it accounts for between 65% and 95% of the greenhouse effect. The usual response is “that’s a very large range” which is true but to try and get the number nailed down is rather hard. I’ve had emails with various scientists over the years who admit it is a huge variable that they really don’t know.
Follow up with Dr Easterbrook’s prediction of 3 decades of cooling while CO2 rises and you will have piqued the interest of the other person to learn more. Job done!

Reply to  ChipMonk
November 28, 2014 6:22 am

But it kind of does. We’d be blocks of ice if it weren’t for that very small amount of CO2. There is a sharp effect with the first 100 ppm. We are hitting diminishing returns, so we now have only ~1.1C forcing per CO2 doubling. That’s a lot less, but nothing it ain’t.
But without positive feedback to triple it, is only lukewarming. And net feedback is simply not in evidence in the data.

Reply to  ChipMonk
November 28, 2014 8:43 am

In a similar vein (sorry about that) I like to ask people how much the temperature has risen over the last 150 years – say since the US Civil War. Then, how about the last 15 or 20 years?
No one comes close, but I sense a huge reluctance to get into any issue that could challenge one’s belief system. Much better just to turn on FOX, or whatever, and get your daily dose of what you want to think. Well, not think, believe.
The politico idiots here in Vermont are gearing up for another round of blast the ridgelines and install a gazillion whirligigs to “save the planet” from CO2. I’ve found here that constructing the base of a single turbine can produce in excess of 250 tons of CO2. Hey, I’ll use their weapon, although I feel like Machiavelli.
Been lurking. I’m not actually a cow – the Facebook thing, where I logged in from, is a present I gave my sister when a banker tried to bribe her with a Christmas gift of the real Bubba Cow in Yola, Nigeria. Had that guy living in our yard for a while until we could convince the university herdsman (how many universities have one of those?) to lead him over to campus.
Thank God I found this weblog.

November 27, 2014 10:07 pm

And google unashamedly keeps pushing the AGW agenda. How can this be stopped?…0.0…1ac.1.4XcrlrWxkk8

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Eliza
November 27, 2014 10:56 pm

In this case Google just seems to be doing what they do best – the MSM has picked up on the study reviewed here:
The (ugly) link you give (at the moment) leads with the Washington Post. Not a surprise.

Jim South london
Reply to  Eliza
November 27, 2014 11:12 pm

Just keep hitting the comments sections on all these alarmist sites.
No one said Changing hearts and minds was easy

Reply to  Eliza
November 28, 2014 6:26 am

Why, nothing can be done to stop them. And, I would argue that, other than trying to convince them to believe otherwise, there is nothing that should be done to stop them. They get to say what they want to say, we get to say what we want to say. That’s the deal. That’s the social contract.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 7:36 am

We don’t turn our conversations into public law that is harmful to the citizens of the United States and other nations based on religious beliefs instead of real world data. We aren’t calling for the deaths and unlawful detention of the opposing side. The idea that there is a social contract in effect under these circumstances is a joke.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 1:25 pm

Ernest, earlier this month we had an election. The Dems lost half of the Senate seats (15-16?) they had up for grabs. The Republicans picked up those seats. Normally the return rate for the US Senate is 97%. 7 or 8 soon to be ex-US Senators show we do indeed have a social contract, and it is working as planned. the founding Fathers rigged it so change would be slow, so we wouldn’t act rashly or the heat of the moment.
We will be having another vote in two years. If we the people are still annoyed guess the rest. It works just takes time.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 2:25 pm

The idea that there is a social contract in effect under these circumstances is a joke.
Oh, but this is when it counts the most.
Who gets to decide what is “social good” or not? Today we silence them? Tomorrow, they silence us. Better to let freedom ring.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 4:31 pm

You are correct evanmjones,. We should follow , Voltaire ” I disagree with what you say,but will defend to the death your right to say it.” People over time will do the right thing, We generally do.

Reply to  Eliza
December 2, 2014 5:59 pm

We generally do.
Used to take centuries. We’ve speeded things up a bit. (We also have less patience, though.) I never liked Voltaire much, but he had that one dead on.

November 28, 2014 12:56 am

Please see a strong increase in temperature in the stratosphere over the polar circle, correlated with a decrease in the magnetic solar activity.

Kelvin Vaughan
November 28, 2014 1:22 am

A Science teacher was giving a lesson on the circulation of the blood. Trying to make the matter clearer, he said, “Now, boys, if I stood on my head, the blood, as you know, would run into it, and I would turn red in the face.” “Yes, sir,” the boys said. “Then why is it that while I am standing upright in the ordinary position, the blood doesn’t run into my feet?” A little fellow shouted, “Cause yer feet ain’t empty”

Reply to  Kelvin Vaughan
November 28, 2014 4:45 am

Of course. I knew there was something there.
But what do you shout to people trying to boil coffee on CO2?
“Cause yer head has been modeled that way”?!?

November 28, 2014 1:53 am
November 28, 2014 2:24 am

thanx for the various comments re the “superconductor-powered wind turbines”.
i also thought the “1,000 times more efficient” claim was unsupported in the article.

November 28, 2014 2:35 am

this one has attracted quite a bit of MSM coverage. any comments?
26 Nov: Nature World News: Jenna Iacurci: Blu-Ray Discs the Answer to Better Solar Panels?
Whether it’s an old Jackie Chan movie or a hilarious episode of “Family Guy,” Blu-ray discs are all one in the same, with all of them possibly holding the answer to better solar panels, according to a new study…
“We found a random pattern or texture does work better than no pattern, but a Blu-ray disc pattern is best of all,” lead study author Jiaxing Huang said in a press release.
“It’s as if electrical engineers and computer scientists developing the Blu-ray technology have been subconsciously doing our jobs, too,” he added.
The researchers used a Blu-ray of “Supercop,” starring Jackie Chan, to create a mold for a quasi-random surface texture that they placed on a solar cell. They found that this pattern boosted light absorption by 21.8 percent over the entire solar spectrum…
“The big surprise is that the pattern worked so well,” Huang told Live Science…
The findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.

November 28, 2014 2:45 am

Global Warming Catastrophe!
From the BBC:

The lowest-ever number of winter deaths was recorded last year, official figures for England and Wales show. An estimated 18,200 excess winter deaths occurred in 2013-14, the lowest number since records began in 1950-51. Last winter was notably warmer than in previous years and had a relatively mild flu season which contributed to the lower number of deaths.

This is just weather, of course, not “global warming”, but it shows that even if the doomsayers are right about rising temperatures (which is far from proved) the effects are as likely to be benign or even beneficial as catastrophic.

Kelvin Vaughan
Reply to  TLM
November 28, 2014 4:15 am

There has been a big rise in the number of birds in my garden this year after the mild wet winter we had in the UK.

Reply to  Kelvin Vaughan
November 28, 2014 4:15 am

you obviously don’t have neighbouring cats.

Reply to  TLM
November 28, 2014 6:28 am

Lomborg made this point back in 2008. Yes, there will be more deaths from heat waves, but there will be ~three times as many lives saved by milder winters.

Reply to  Evan Jones
November 28, 2014 12:03 pm
Reply to  Evan Jones
December 2, 2014 5:52 pm

Stipulating the poor way these things are calculated, you are probably right.
Thanks for the link.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  TLM
November 28, 2014 8:09 am

Warming up the place has always been mostly beneficial. Our current warming has a long way to go to equal the other warming periods of this interglacial. The biggest problem has been the rapid growth in population, but the world seems to be handling it as our lives continue to improve. Anyway, everything being equal, there will be a large decline in population by 2100 if the temperatures remain as moderate as they have been over the last 150 years. For data to support this decline, see UN, World Bank, and CIA fertility rate charts. They all show similar statistics. Birth rates in Europe are so low that European Culture will be gone fairly quickly.

sleepingbear dunes
November 28, 2014 4:43 am

I certainly hope You Know Who weighs in on this paper. It looks interesting and well worth further discussion. I would bet 2 dishes of my Turkey Pot Pie that the MSM will never pick it up regardless of its merits.

sleepingbear dunes
November 28, 2014 4:47 am

My comment was intended for Neil Jordan’s link to the Hockey Schtick paper on Solar correlation.

Dodgy Geezer
November 28, 2014 5:11 am

@Neil Jordan
…New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2…
Ah, Neil, I’m afraid you don’t understand AGW.
In the past there were NATURAL CO2 variations. These, of course, did not affect the climate.
NOW, there are MAN-MADE CO2 variations. These are EVIL, and so of course will affect the climate. Climate science is simple when you know how…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 28, 2014 3:16 pm

Dodgy Geezer
Man-made CO2 is very EVIL.
Glad you made this point.
Like you, it is not clear to me – a bum boatie – how Nature, which has done a pretty fair job for four (and some) thousand million years, manages to tell the man-made CO2 from the, I guess, other CO2.
Must be decidedly discriminatory – that’s my take.

Dodgy Geezer
November 28, 2014 5:41 am

..The lowest-ever number of winter deaths was recorded last year……even if the doomsayers are right about rising temperatures (which is far from proved) the effects are as likely to be benign or even beneficial as catastrophic….
Really. TLM, don’t you understand ANYTHING about catastrophic AGW?
When more deaths are reported, that means ‘the Catastrophic End of Humanity!!’. When less deaths are reported, that means…… “the Catastrophic Collapse of the NHS and our Pensions System, due to old folk living longer…’
See how it’s done?

November 28, 2014 6:00 am

Bob Tisdale
The “on and off” again 2014/2015 El NINO seems to be flickering near off region again during the past week as SST levels have dropped dramatically at Nino !+2 and 4 regions to below or barely at the NINO cut off levels ..

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  herkimer
November 28, 2014 9:36 am

Is the on-again/off-again behavior of this “el-Nino” real or just my impression? Can you think of another that behaved similarly?

November 28, 2014 6:08 am

There is no doubt that winters have been getting colder in most parts of the world. According to NOAA, CLIMATE AT A GLANCE data, the trend of GLOBAL LAND and OCEAN WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES has been declining for 17 years or since 1998 at (0.06 C /decade). The trend of GLOBAL WINTER LAND ONLY TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES declined at (-0.22C/decade.) So have the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER LAND ONLY TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES declined at (- 0.35C /decade) since 1998. The trend of WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES for CONTIGUOUS US declined at (-1.79 F/decade) since 1998.
If the complete truth were told, CONTIGUOUS US WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES have actually been declining since 1995 at (-1.13F/decade) and NORTHERN HEMISPHERE LAND ONLY WINTER TEMPERATUREANOMALIES have been declining at (–0.18C/decade) or almost 20 years. So winters have been cooling for 2 decades already, but not word about this from IPCC or NOAA
Annual Contiguous US temperatures have been declining at (-0.36 F/decade) since 1998.
The WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES for CANADA declined from an average of + 2.6 C during 1998-2000 to (-0.4C) by 2014 winter, or a cooling of some 3 degrees C. A winter cooling trend is also apparent in EUROPE, and NORTHERN ASIA. I see this pattern continuing until 2035/2045 as the oceans enter their cool phase as they did 1880-1910 and again 1945-1975. Here is what is happening in Canada:
It is clear from above that there is little global warming in North America, United States or Canada.
Global Annual temperatures have been flat since 1998 whether measured by land instruments or satellite data and the current climate models are falsely predicting warming 3 to 5 times higher than the current observable trend of temperature change.

Reply to  herkimer
November 28, 2014 7:39 am

“It is clear from above that there is little global warming in North America, United States or Canada.”
It is my understanding that all “global warming” is in places where there are no thermostats to measure with so “infilling” and other “sophisticated” scientific wild assed guessing is used.
I understand that parts of the far northern pacific (over the ocean away from all human life) has warmed upwards of 3 degrees just this year! (or is that just this month? — whatever it takes)

R. Shearer
Reply to  herkimer
November 28, 2014 8:17 am

And yet there are claims that 2014 will easily or likely be the hottest year on record.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  herkimer
November 30, 2014 8:51 pm

The continents are cooling and yet they say it is warming over the oceans where there are no thermometers, then they wonder why less and less people believe the adult bovine fetal mater!

November 28, 2014 6:41 am

I am in the process of moving into a new home I bought in a delightfully rural town nestled against the eastern side of the Blue Mountains (and within walking distance of my new job). So I will be out of service for a bit until internet is connected up. I have service only for the morning here and then it goes away. I will be on phone-only connect, which I hate with a passion due to the keyboard and window being so small I need to wear two sets of reading glasses just to type the words “I think…”. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I spent the day moving (and am still at it) but at the same time, being very thankful for my new home and the terrific hard working community and school I am now a part of.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 28, 2014 6:48 am

Hope you have a happy time in your new home and new job.

Mark Bofill
Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 28, 2014 7:00 am

congratz Pam! 🙂

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 28, 2014 7:13 am

Very exciting and invigorating life changes for you. Hear’s to your wonderful new beginning!

Reply to  Bob Weber
November 28, 2014 7:14 am

“Here’s …. “

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 28, 2014 12:11 pm

Some years ago that I was in the Blue Mountains, which btw are “blue” thanks to the blue haze caused by organics (mostly terpenes) from the trees.
Beautiful places to live and if you can combine it with your work, that is the best way of life…
Happy moving and enjoy your new (work and natural) environment there!

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 28, 2014 3:24 pm

Do survive the move.
It is not a good time. Down the road, or to a new continent. Neither is fun.
Reward yourself, at the end of each day, with a food, link, beverage, or rant, that makes it worthwhile!
Internet – my thoughts are with you. I had eighteen days without Internet, because some (expletive self-retracted) tried to use a long-dead credit card for my monthly subscription . . . .
Many smiles, and have a nice aroma during your first night ‘in’.

Reply to  Auto
November 29, 2014 8:54 pm

I experienced 55 years without the internet. Gee, it was bad, but we did have a lot of fun!!!!

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 28, 2014 4:51 pm

Best of luck with the New home and new job Pamela. I always enjoy your comments, so I look forward to reading them again, soon.
Regards, Eamon

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 28, 2014 4:59 pm

Pamela Gray,
Happy to hear that.
I’ve moved quite a bit in my professional life and it was always a chance to a do a healthy and needed downsize of unnecessary possessions.

george e. smith
Reply to  Pamela Gray
December 1, 2014 11:52 am

I’m too old to remember where the Blue Mountains are, but hopefully, the east side is the drier side.
Good luck Pamela.

November 28, 2014 6:55 am

After reading and participating in a few blogs I stepped back for a moment and realized there was something amiss. It appears to me there are two theories regarding the mechanism of CO2/GHG/atmospheric heating: theory A based on UV on the higher energy side of visible light and theory B based on IR on the lower energy side of visible light.
Theory A
High energy UV (UV-A, UV-B, damages eyes, burns skin) of appropriate frequency knocks electrons out of orbit in CO2 molecules. (Einstein’s photoelectric effect) When these electrons return to their stable orbits photons with energy diminished by the work function they are coincidentally atuned to heating water molecules ala microwave oven. This leads to a general heating of the atmosphere, which heats the ocean (unlikely when opposed to evap) which outgasses more CO2 leading to a positive feedback loop of disputed magnitude. The radiative feedback loop pf IPCC AR5. No S-B or GHE. BTW I posit this theory in my writerbeat posting and after 700 plus reads have yet to be chastised or corrected.
Theory B
IR from the sun (SWIR?) heats objects on the surface of the earth (oceans, too?) which radiate LWIR per S-B (does water follow S-B?) which is both trapped by the atmosphere (GHE) yet carries energy out of the atmosphere to maintain the balance. CO2 absorbs this LWIR reducing the heat leaving the atmosphere (blanket, resistors) and re-back radiates heat from a colder troposphere to a warmer surface and maybe amplifying the energy in the process.
One of these theories goes home with the 2015BMW X-5, the other with a gift box of sausage and cheese.
Do-do-do-doo-do-do-do (Jeopardy)

Reply to  nickreality65
November 28, 2014 7:02 am

Try theory C, (and start reading different blogs).

Reply to  nickreality65
November 28, 2014 8:11 am

All the radiation from the sun is shortwave and the atmosphere is transparent to SW radiation. After the suns SW radiation gets absorbed by the ground or the ocean, then the ground or ocean emit long wave radiation that is absorbed by H20 and CO2 in the air.
But the real kicker is that the ocean does not emit much (net) radiation at all. It cools by evaporation. The atmospheric effect is a rounding error.

Reply to  Genghis
November 28, 2014 11:18 pm

Genghis November 28, 2014 at 8:11 am
All the radiation from the sun is shortwave and the atmosphere is transparent to SW radiation.
No, and no. A considerable amount of the Sun’s output is IR:
You can see clearly that this is true in the above and similar charts. You can also see the various atmospheric gases and their absorption spectra. For example, water vapour, CO2 and ozone all have absorption spectra in the IR and Visible ranges, and a whole bunch for oxygen and ozone in the UV range. You just can’t make blanket statements like those in a discussion like this and expect to get statement that mirrors reality.

george e. smith
Reply to  Genghis
December 1, 2014 11:49 am

As David’s graphs show, the solar spectrum contains a good bit of IR. the 6k K BB envelope puts about 45 % of it longer than 700 nm. This is still barely visible, but is an important mark, because that is about where water vapor starts to kick in and absorb INCOMING solar energy, which thus never reaches the ground (ocean) as near IR.
The 99 % IR cutoff point is at about 4.0 microns, so only 1% of solar energy is longer than that. The next significant CO2 band doesn’t kick I till about 5 microns (I believe) but there IS some small atmospheric CO2 absorption of solar near IR (asymmetrical stretch mode.)
So atmospheric GHGs, particularly H2O, O3, and CO2 do absorb some incoming solar energy, which thereby does not get stored in he deep ocean.
Note also that water has its highest ever absorption coefficient at 3.0 microns, at above 8,000 cm ^-1, which mean that about 5 microns of water thickness absorbs 99% of that wavelength of Solar incoming.
5microns, is not a large rain drop or cloud droplet, so that means that clouds are strongly absorbing of incoming solar radiant energy from about 1.0 microns to at least 10 microns. The absorption coefficient does drop somewhat to at least 1,000 cm ^-1, so that means 50 microns rather than 5, for total absorption.
In any case the near IR solar energy from 1.0 microns and longer, does NOT penetrate to the ocean depths, so it is NOT part of the earth’s heat load.
The clouds re-radiate it as an isotropic thermal (BB) spectrum at the cloud Temperature, so it is peaked closer to 15 microns wavelength. The less than 50 % of that directed earthwards, is totally absorbed in the surface few microns of ocean, and results in prompt evaporation.
So water in the atmosphere is a strong negative feedback cooling effect.

November 28, 2014 7:30 am

Your theory C? Suggested blogs?

Ernest Bush
Reply to  nickreality65
November 28, 2014 8:23 am

Theory A + Theory B = Theory C?

Silver ralph
November 28, 2014 8:01 am

Any more thoughts, on Schiphol buying 167 Teslas, as taxis?
Will it work, or will this be another Green folly, with dying battery-drained Teslas scattered all over Holland?

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Silver ralph
November 28, 2014 8:30 am

Since the batteries will die at around 80,000 miles and require complete replacement and these vehicles will run up really high daily mileages, I would go with the scattered all over Holland. The company will also become its own casualty because the replacement costs will bankrupt it. There is no fuel savings advantage because of the cost of the batteries, even at European petrol prices. The initial cost of the vehicles is ridiculously high because of the original battery cost.

Reply to  Silver ralph
November 28, 2014 10:31 am

Electric motors are silent and powerful plus they can be used in a crowded place without a very adverse effect on the air quality, so I guess the cars are nice but expensive.
Electric car has the good side that it can be loaded with randomly produced and thus cheap Danish wind power, which they are forced to dump on the market. On the other hand, I suspect the result is environmentally barely better than ordinary diesel. All depends on how you weight lithium mining and pollutant particles in Amsterdam.
In the end – they’re going to subsidize, and greens count it’s not their money, so they don’t care.

Reply to  Hugh
November 28, 2014 12:25 pm

While local pollution is better for electric powered cars, the overall emissions of CO2 and particulates are not much better than of diesel cars if you take the energy mix used for power generation in most European countries. Except if you are loading only on wind or solar power, but that requires your own panels or a smart grid which only loads your car when there is a lot of solar or wind power.
The backside of a silent motor is that nobody hears you coming, as my sister in law with here hybrid Toyota has experienced: even a cat didn’t move in the middle of a street when she was driving slowly on battery only. And she had a heated discussion with a visual impaired who got near under her car for the same reason…
But I heard that the hybrid Audi will implement some “warning sound” for their hybrid up to 40 km/h. Above 40 km/h other driving noises take over the motor sound…

November 28, 2014 8:04 am

This was an interesting thread concerning Big Data and machine learning:
The relevance to climate is that the IPCC and the consensus are heavily dependent on computer models – this talk is interesting because it speaks not only to what is able to be done in machine learning/Big Data science, but also the much larger area of what cannot.
In particular, the speaker talks about the difference between high performance and good data science: you can build much faster hardware, but the science/software must also keep up.
Several tidbits:
Having an algorithm run faster, but which loses accuracy – is a sign that the data science is flawed. Does this remind of anything?
The speaker also points to the divergence between academic Big Data and data science vs. commercial – that the academics are creating for massive, custom hardware. Again, reminds you of anything with regards to climate science?
The last part is not mentioned, but seems obvious to me:
a) If climate science in the consensus is effectively just throwing money into the hardware as opposed to improving the software/algorithms – this goes a long way towards explaining the “Pause”. In particular, the need to build scalability is a related, but tangent aspect to large scale computing. Perhaps some significant part of the failure in climate science is the focus on scale rather than accuracy – compounded by the difficulty to “prove” accuracy in climate science in general.
b) The need for very large grants for these large scale academic computing setups introduces a perverse dynamic: those able to get funding are able to progress as opposed to those able to improve the data science/software.

November 28, 2014 8:12 am

Climate change is real – ‘coz’ that’s what the climate does.

Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies – 1975
In recent times it has been the fashion, and the word is used delib-erately, for archaeologists and historians to deny that any natural causes had affected climate, and thus influenced mankind and its affairs, since the end of the last major ice age……..

Steve Oregon
November 28, 2014 8:19 am

Every once in a while I pop over to here to check the asylum.
“Much of the heat that gets trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases ends up in the oceans — 90 percent, in fact, according to recent studies. Taking this into account, global warming has dramatically accelerated over the last 15 years, no matter what “pause” graph Uncle Bob shows the cousins on his smartphone.”

Reply to  Steve Oregon
November 28, 2014 10:09 am

Please don’t do that to me again. The combination of bs and poor writing means it is past time for another slice of Thanksgiving pumpkin pie, which they say, is now threatened?

Reply to  Steve Oregon
November 28, 2014 6:21 pm

Yeah, yeah, yeah, thanks Steve.
They really started measuring the oceans in 2007.
Before that they gradusted through three or four different types of intruments*, mainly in shipping lanes plus the odd scientific expedition.
Get back to me in 50 years.
Thanks for dropping by.
* buckets and ropes, reversing thermometers, XBTs, now ARGO.
PS. It is quite interesting to read up on some of the articles on those measures, and to read up on details of the intruments themselves. Much more so than going to “How to win an argument” sites.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
November 28, 2014 7:27 pm

Welcome to the asylum Steve. Do any of the lemmings over @ thinkprogress [cough] do any fact checking (or thinking) of their own, or do they take what is written over there as gospel? A mere five minutes of my time…..suggests NOT (took me longer to write this comment).
Claim #1
…global warming has dramatically accelerated over the past 15 years,….
Really??? Where? The average of all five ‘global’ temp. data sets, as used by the IPCC and the WMO, show the rate of ‘global warming’ in the past 15 years to be ~0.1°C ±0.2°C (you can also include BEST if you like, which makes six).
Don’t believe me? Go check for yourself.
Claim #2
It is almost a certainty at this point, that the year 2014 will be officially know as the hottest year on record….
As you are well aware, us over here in the asylum are often (always) accused of ‘cherry picking’ a certain start date and/or data set to counter your claims. Are you aware Steve, that only ONE of the five data sets (six if you include BEST) used by the IPCC and the WMO show this claim. Guess which one it is. It would be NOAA’s….the same people who are making this claim.
Don’t believe me? Go check for yourself.

G. Karst
November 28, 2014 8:34 am

Warm is a pleasant walk in the park. GK
Lowest ever winter deaths recorded

CC Reader
November 28, 2014 9:24 am

This is an article that I found in HOCKEYSCHTICK. Do any of the knowledgable on this site have reletive comments to or against its validity?
Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Reply to  CC Reader
November 28, 2014 10:39 am

Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.
If there were no radiative forcing, there wouldn’t be an effective radiating height!
I didn’t read the whole thing, but it begins with the Ideal Gas Law which is PV=nRT but that is applicable to gas enclosed in a container, not an open atmosphere constrained by gravity at the top and water/earth at the bottom, hardy a container with rigid dimensions. This seems to be another version of Nikolov and Zeller which ultimately breaks the laws of physics while coming to a conclusion which seems logical. But they’ve defined in the sentence quoted above, a contradiction that no amount of technical machinations can resolve.

ferd berple
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 28, 2014 12:03 pm

the atmosphere is effectively a closed container for practical purposes. you can simulate it on a computer with a rectangle, by turning off the bounce on the vertical walls, so that the molecules go out one side and immediate back in the other. the top of the rectangle needs to be high enough so that molecules lost to space are in line with observations, or you can ignore the loss and bounce the molecules off the top of the container, after a delay in line with their vertical speed. heaters and or moving textured surfaces can be added to simulate the effects of land and waves.
the big challenge is to create a lapse rate, as this setup normally creates an isothermal atmosphere, regardless of the PE-KE conversion. the problem is that the less dense atmosphere above preferrentially sorts for faster moving molecules moving updards, exactly balancing the conversion of PE to KE.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 28, 2014 9:01 pm

ferd berple;
the atmosphere is effectively a closed container for practical purposes.
Not for this purpose. In a closed container, PV=nRT, but the “V” is fixed. In the atmosphere, “V” is not fixed. The atmosphere can expand and contract, so you cannot model it as a box of some sort. You also have changing density from bottom to top, and you also have changing composition from bottom to top (lots of water vapour at the bottom for example, not much at the top). So, not being in a closed container, and not being of consistent density, and not being of consistent composition, PV=nRT is as best, loosely applicable.

November 28, 2014 9:48 am

Energy incoming from the Sun (Ein) = Energy out (Eout) from Earth to space
Observations indeed show Ein = Eout = 240 W/m2 (2)
Watts is not energy, but power, energy over time. Btu per English hours or kJ per metric hours. Just how that effects the paper I can’t say. Theory C?

Don Perry
Reply to  nickreality65
November 29, 2014 6:37 am

affects the paper, not “effects the paper”

November 28, 2014 9:50 am

a question to the experts.
Is there any other way for the planet to lose heat, apart from radiation into space ?

Reply to  EternalOptimist
November 28, 2014 10:21 am

I’m no an expert, but I play one on WUWT 😉
In theory, tiny amounts of earth’s atmosphere are lost to space on an going basis. Those molecules would take energy with them. As would satellites we launch into space, send to the moon or mars, etc. But when you calculate the amount of energy this adds up to, and round off to a few dozen decimal places as a % of the total energy flux, it comes out to 0.
So for all practical purposes…. No.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 28, 2014 10:35 am

thanks David. I didnt even know the sun rotated till Anthony enlightened me. lol

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 28, 2014 10:41 am

I was thinking more along the lines of electromagnetic phenomena like induction, or the posibility of energy being ‘stripped away’ by passing stuff, like the solar wind.

Reply to  EternalOptimist
November 28, 2014 5:06 pm

A very interesting question.
Allow me to answer in a way, even while I may not be an expert.
Now I could be wrong, but technically speaking “the planet losing heat” means the planet losing energy, because while considering the whole earth system as a planet there is no way to imagine it as warming or cooling, only parts of it do cool or warm in various periods.
Besides the planet is considered as a perfectly balanced system which means that in the long run does not accumulate or lose any energy or mass, but all that said it still has a kinda of variation from that supossed balanced mean. So there is always expected a fluctuation of surplus energy in and out of the system, otherwise you would have a planet that would seem the same as our planet from within but not observable or detected from space anywhere beyond the moon.:-)
So while the planet considered perfectly balanced is not absolutely balanced.
So if it accumulates a certain amount of energy through a given period then it is expected to lose it at a given point in time….and there is where actually what you ask may make sense as the only means for that energy to escape naturally to the space will be in the form of heat from the atmosphere.
Regardless of exactly knowing or not what mechanisms precisely involved with that, according to my understanding, there is expected an atmospheric heat loss to the outer space due to the earth system thermodynamic balance, at given periods.
If above right then at given periods there would be some atmospheric warming or cooling due to the planet’s thermodynamic balance and it is feasible to expect that for quite long periods the climatic trends may be propagating in a warmer manner than expected.
But as I said I could be wrong.
As far as I can tell there is no any consideration of such as this in the orthodoxy of Climatology. Perhaps is only my imagination making all this up. 🙂
Hope this may help a little..

November 28, 2014 9:58 am

It’s getting warmer all over the globe except in the US. <-said by a lefty relative visiting on turkey day. Where do they get this crap?

Bernie Hutchins
November 28, 2014 10:36 am

Can anyone lead me to information on LOESS (or LOWESS) smoothing. I have looked in the usual places and am still confused.
First of all, it appears to me to be a least-squares polynomial fit to a moving local group (x) of samples. It looks like Savitzky-Golay smoothing except the weighting of the errors across the group is a tapered window-like tri-cubic function rather than flat. So if T is a matrix representing the normal-equations (over-determined), the coefficients of the polynomial are a = inv(Tt*W*T)*Tt*W*x where Tt is the transpose and W is a diagonal matrix of error weights. Solving for the value of the polynomial at the center in terms of x is just then a thereafter-fixed, LTI FIR filter. This calculation of filter coefficients is very easy, and the processing itself (FIR) is certainly NOT computationally intensive.
Yet it is described as computationally harsh. Even limited to first- and second-order polynomials. Why? Am I doing something wrong? Is it the case that the modified “robust” form (removal of outliers) is assumed and this is the bottleneck? Or is it a matter of some modification for end effects that is not FIR (or LTI) there? Why tri-cubic instead of other taperings?
As a filter design, the filters I get as above are unremarkable. Adding a weight vector to Savitzky-Golay is interesting, but is LOESS, beyond that, ad hoc?
Thanks for any suggestions.

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  Bernie Hutchins
November 28, 2014 11:18 am

Bernie Hutchins: Yet it is described as computationally harsh. Even limited to first- and second-order polynomials. Why? Am I doing something wrong? Is it the case that the modified “robust” form (removal of outliers) is assumed and this is the bottleneck?
What you wrote is correct, but I have questions: Who describes it thus? Computationally harsh compared to what? What do FIR and LTI stand for?

Bernie Hutchins
Reply to  Matthew R Marler
November 28, 2014 12:54 pm

Thanks Matthew –
Well, for example, Wikipedia says “The trade-off for these features is increased computation. Because it is so computationally intensive, LOESS would have been practically impossible to use in the era when least squares regression was being developed.”
Now, if one were NOT familiar with the fact that this curve fitting (matrix inversion) results in a one-time calculation of fixed filter coefficients (I myself STILL find this fact “astounding” – and beautiful), such a lack of understanding in itself could lead to a claim of “computationally intensive”). That is, if you thought you HAD TO fit each group of points separately, it might look daunting. You don’t. You calculate once and you have a fixed filter that gives an output as a linear combination of input sample values at they move through the filter.
FIR is for “Finite Impulse Response” and LTI is “Linear Time-Invariant”, terms common in signal processing to describe a class of particularly simple systems. A moving average is FIR (and LTI). For MA the time series shifts one space and the sample values inside the (finite) filter length are added (accumulated) and the sum is divided by the length. (Alternatively the samples are multiplied by 1/Length and just added.) For a general FIR, the samples are multiplied by filter coefficients (the impulse response values which are generally different, unlike the MA where they are all the same) before being added. Nothing “intensive” about either. My interpretation of LOESS is no more complicated to implement either. Just another FIR.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 10:48 am

University of East Anglia (UEA) making the news here in Britain (not for climate stuff this time) for deciding to ban a Ukip man from taking part in a students’ debate. A petition, started by a Leftie, managed to get the debate cancelled, so facist-socialists show (yet again) that they don’t believe in free speech.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 10:57 am

“Free speech for me, but not for thee” is often heard on this side of the pond also.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  markstoval
November 28, 2014 11:04 am

Indeed. But what’s so amusing is the rhetoric they use. This particular young woman, who organised the petition against the Ukip man attending, said “Our university is known as an advocate of diversity, integration, and tolerance.” Never once seeing that she herself uses the word ‘tolerance’…then sets out to ban someone from a perfectly legal political party talking! You can’t put a figure on stupidity like that, it’s priceless.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 11:31 am

Interesting, Big Jim,
Carswell was right when he said that the hoo-rah would only stimulate interest when the debate was eventually held. So the dummies who sought to suppress the debate of the issue only succeeded in maximizing publicity.
Chuckle chuckle.

Reply to  mpainter
November 28, 2014 5:10 pm

Isn’t this because these people’s narrative insists that they are the “oppressed underdog” championing against the “evil overlords”, making it OK for them to use underhanded tactics and behave undemocratically towards their enemies?

Matthew R Marler
November 28, 2014 10:51 am

Economists take on Little Ice Age:
We analyze the timing and extent of Northern European temperature falls during the Little Ice Age, using standard temperature reconstructions. However, we can find little evidence of temporal dependence or structural breaks in European weather before the twentieth century. Instead, European weather between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries resembles uncorrelated draws from a distribution with a constant mean (although there are occasional decades of markedly lower summer temperature) and variance, with the same behavior holding more tentatively back to the twelfth century. Our results suggest that observed conditions during the Little Ice Age in Northern Europe are consistent with random climate variability. The existing consensus about apparent cold conditions may stem in part from a Slutsky effect, where smoothing data gives the spurious appearance of irregular oscillations when the underlying time series is white noise.
Kelly, Morgan; Ó Gráda, Cormac. Change points and temporal dependence in reconstructions of annual temperature: Did Europe experience a Little Ice Age?. The Annals of Applied Statistics 8 (2014), no. 3, 1372–1394. doi:10.1214/14-AOAS753.
Behind a paywall. You can get it if you have an account with Euclid.

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
November 28, 2014 11:41 am

No LIA, no MWP. And so the established climate record undergoes another attempt at its obliteration, this time by two economists utilizing statistical analysis. This latest attempt of climate liquidation coming years after paleoclimatologists like Mann et al had tacitly admitted the fallacy of trying to undo the past climate trends. I wonder if they got a grant to do this study.

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  mpainter
November 28, 2014 1:15 pm

mpainter: No LIA, no MWP.
They do not dispute MWP. They note that the LIA may have started before their earliest time series began. They confirm the existence of decade long periods of lower temperatures. If they are correct, then the phrase “Little Ice Age” has been an overgeneralization of some actual cold spells.

November 28, 2014 10:56 am

Beautiful view – of the rain in the Sahara.

Reply to  ren
November 28, 2014 1:23 pm

Not so beautiful in the South of France, where they had floods with a lot of damage and several drowned…

November 28, 2014 11:18 am

November 28, 2014 at 7:30 am
Your theory C? Suggested blogs?
So you would like Theory C. and a suggested blog?
Before I do that, Do you really want to know? Are you willing to learn or are you one of these people who are afraid that if they learn they will have to change their stance on this topic. – and so prefer to remain in blissful ignorance? It’s rather like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix, do you want to take the red pill? I suspect not, but I may misjudge.
If you do you will have to abandon a lot of nonsense you may have taken on board On the other hand you gain knowledge (if capable, but you need to work at it).
Remember, knowledge is its own reward. Whichever side of the debate you argue for, knowledge always makes you stronger, it never makes you weaker. But beware, once you learn you cannot unlearn., there is no way back. Or would you, like most here, prefer to take the blue pill and then you can agree with the likes of Dug Cotton posting above about his experiences on Venus and Uranus?
Are you willing to work at it?
So Nick: red pill or blue pill?

November 28, 2014 11:26 am

There is no spoon. Red on!

Reply to  nickreality65
November 28, 2014 11:47 am

Remember. you must put effort in to get something out. Try this (the most instructive site on this topic in the Universe) .
…and just wait for the fools to come out.

Reply to  MikeB
November 28, 2014 12:37 pm
November 28, 2014 11:32 am

Dug Cotton? Coordinates?

Reply to  nickreality65
November 28, 2014 11:41 am

Its not CO2
November 27, 2014 at 8:29 pm

ferd berple
November 28, 2014 11:40 am

If you really want to achieve energy sustainability, you need to take the whole world into consideration, says Chief Ellis Ross of the Haisla First Nation. “My eyes were really opened by looking at China,” he says. “They are going to get their energy needs met any way they can. If all they can get is coal and oil or diesel, that’s what they’re going to use. Of course if they do, global warming will be accelerated and we’ll all be at risk.”
And that, he says, is why projects like the LNG Canada export terminal for liquid natural gas (LNG) make so much sense. “If we provide them with liquid natural gas, which is less harmful to the environment, and is easier to ship and easier to clean up if it does spill, then they will use it, and the result will be a more sustainable energy environment, not just for China, but for the whole world because it will slow down the pace of global warming.”

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 11:46 am

Question for Americans.
In films (movies) we often see streets in the US with steam emanating from drain covers/grilles. Can someone finally tell me why? I have waited so long to ask this question! Thank you.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 11:52 am

Warm water going thru drains from dishwashers. Cold air above condenses water vapor.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 12:14 pm

Probably from various types of hot water draining from buildings. Many of the older buildings uses steam heat and hot condensate might drain or leak into the drain systems. Cooling lakes at power plants will steam during cold weather. Floor drains in the plant also might be steaming. Not the most efficient use or heat, but might not be cost effective to pursue. Cold air won’t hold as much water as warm. When warm, saturated air hits cold water condenses into vapor. Power plant cooling towers.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 12:24 pm

You will find that many, many nighttime street scenes will be shot with wet streets. Dry concrete and dry asphalt (tarmac) is ugly on film either motion picture or still. If you wet it down it looks a whole lot better. You can also get nice reflected lighting effects from traffic signals, streetlights etc. as well as long highlights from strategically placed small PAR lights that create a lot of scenic depth. Many of these shows are filmed in Southern California and pavement stays hot for a long time after sunset (it’s a desert) so sluicing a street down with a booster line (small firehose) will warm a lot of water. Since the best effect is via back lighting the vapor plumes are noticeable, especially where lots of that warmed water collects in drains. In darker productions it’s a de rigeuer for the mis en scene… to overuse the vernacular.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 7:48 pm

A very large proportion of New York City, for instance, is heated with residual heat from power plants. That could account for steam being sent to a drain from buildings after heating.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 28, 2014 8:06 pm

flattering that you ask at WUWT but check Google for district heating

Reply to  mebbe
November 30, 2014 11:43 am

District heating combined with masterful maintenance.
There’s tons of district heatings in Germany but nowhere such leaks.

November 28, 2014 12:04 pm

Interesting opinion piece about the upcoming devastation from the EPA’s pseudo-science based regulatory nightmare. Links to the Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc. industry study on the 2nd page are worth a read through:

November 28, 2014 12:16 pm

MikeB: I don’t know that I follow Doug Cotton and it doesn’t really matter. IMHO one can’t compare Earth to Venus or Jupiter because of the water. Water makes the earth unique.

Reply to  nickreality65
November 28, 2014 1:15 pm

Fortunately, the water vapor cools the surface of the Earth, not as much as on Venus.

Reply to  ren
November 28, 2014 4:47 pm

…but does the absence of water vapor keep mars from heating?

Reply to  ren
November 28, 2014 11:34 pm

Mars is approximately 1.52 times as larger than the Earth from the Sun as a consequence means that orbits our star during 1.9 years of Earth and more precisely in 687 days. The Martian day is 24 hours 37 minutes and 22.6 seconds. Mars Climate is determined (like on Earth) seasons. The average temperature is about -55 ° C, and the temperature at the surface during the winter oscillates around -133 ° C and in summer about 27 ° C. Does on Mars is the stratosphere, which is heated?

Reply to  ren
November 30, 2014 1:38 pm

This article is pertinent to my question;
This seems like a backhanded admission that CO2 is not the primary driver of planetary climates.

November 28, 2014 2:33 pm

CBS playing politics:
28 Nov: CBS: Michael Casey: What will it take to get skeptics to warm up to climate change?
As the annual United Nations climate talks get under way Monday in Peru, global leaders are likely to call out natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy in a bid to rally support for a pact combating global warming.
But a new study finds that extreme weather – whether it be droughts, floods or heat waves – does little to change attitudes about climate change in the United States…
Climatic conditions “only have a negligible effect on perceptions about the seriousness of climate change,” the researchers wrote in a study published in Global Environmental Change…
Rather, it comes down to personal politics…
In a separate study in Nature Climate Change that McCright also took part in, researchers found that only 35 percent of Americans believe global warming was the main cause of the abnormally high temperatures during the winter of 2012.
“Many people already had their minds made up about global warming and this extreme weather was not going to change that,” McCright said of the winter, which was the fourth warmest winter in the United States dating back to at least 1895…
Warshaw also said it would help if Republicans saw an economic cost to inaction or see the solutions to reducing carbon emissions as being relatively cheap.
“As the costs of wind power and solar power becomes cheaper to address climate change, I think public opinion on taking action on climate change will change,” he said. “People are attentive to cost.”
not a mention of the contradictory Columbia study in the CBS piece (mind u, i see all these studies as propaganda):
24 Nov: Bloomberg: Cass R. Sunstein: What Global Warming? Pass Me a Blanket
When people think the day’s weather is exceptionally cold, research shows, they’re less likely to be concerned about global warming. And when the day seems unusually hot, concern jumps.
Notably, this effect can be found among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old…
To study this phenomenon, Eric Johnson, Ye Li and Lisa Zaval of Columbia University’s Center for Decision Sciences, asked almost 600 Americans two questions…
And even when the researchers went out of their way to inform respondents that minor fluctuations in weather are to be expected during climate change, the day’s temperature affected their answers.
A follow-up study found that, on exceptionally warm days, people were also far more likely to donate money to a charity concerned about global warming, and they were likely to donate more money as well — 500 percent more than on cold days…
What’s going on here? The best explanation probably involves “attribute substitution,” a pervasive phenomenon described by Daniel Kahneman, a behavioral scientist who won the Nobel Prize in economics…

Another Ian
Reply to  pat
November 28, 2014 6:07 pm

Check out
“Following on the heels of my not-so-recent (surprising, but then again, perhaps not) discovery that absolutely nowhere in the United Nations Charter can one find any mention whatsoever of “environment” or “sustainable development”, i.e. the favourite hobby-horses of the (to the best of my knowledge, unchartered) UNEP, I began reading the verbiage in this Charter. ”
And more

November 28, 2014 2:45 pm

Here’s something to turn your stomach after that big Thanksgiving day dinner:

We asked a panel of experts to find the brightest and best finance leaders, influencers and innovators of the next generation. Here, in no particular order, are the final 50, including academics, economists, investors, finance directors, chartered accountants, CFOs and entrepreneurs. These are the game changers and finance stars of the future – See more at:


MICHAEL MANN, distinguished professor of meteorology, Penn State University
Co-founder of, Mann uses theoretical models and observational data to understand the earth’s climate system. He has earned a clutch of awards for his efforts, including the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union and, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize. – See more at:

November 28, 2014 2:47 pm

gender politics as CAGW propaganda:
28 Nov: Guardian: Teresa Odendahl: Women on climate change frontline make big impact on small grants
(Teresa Odendahl is CEO of the Global Greengrants Fund)
From Guatemala to Indonesia, bold action by women in communities threatened by extreme weather shows there is an alternative to costly international schemes.
They do so not as a matter of politics, but as a matter of survival.
From the rainforests of Guatemala to the islands of Papua New Guinea, rural communities are losing their homes and livelihoods as their regions face bouts of extreme weather and new cycles of drought and flooding…
Worldwide, the women and grassroots groups with whom we work are taking action to save the environment in concrete ways, from stopping deforestation in Indonesia to promoting clean energy in Nigeria. In the face of death threats and harassment, they drive their projects forward because their lives – and the lives of their children – depend on them.
Despite leading some of the boldest and most successful climate projects, however, they receive little attention and scant backing from typical funders and climate finance programmes…
Global Greengrants Fund

November 28, 2014 2:53 pm

28 Nov: UK Spectator: Ross Clark: Cold is killing fewer Britons than ever. Why don’t we hear about the beneficial side of climate change?
Yesterday, the Royal Society published a report, Resilience to Extreme Weather, predicting that by 2090 four billion people around the world each year will be subjected to heatwave events, with dire consequences for the health of older people.
This morning, the Office of National Statistics published its latest figures on ‘excess winter deaths’. They show that last winter there were 18,200 more deaths between December and February than would be expected during the three summer months. Dramatic though this sounds, it is the lowest recorded in 65 years. During the previous winter, 2012-13, there were 31,280 winter deaths. There is a very good reason why excess winter deaths fell so sharply in the space of a year. Last winter was particularly mild: December and January were 2° Celsius above the long-term average. The winter 2012/13, by contrast, had prolonged periods of cold. There is a long term correlation between cold winters and excess winter deaths.
Cold kills the elderly and infirm, as indeed does heat. But only the latter of these facts is acknowledged in the Royal Society report. It is the same with IPCC reports and others. We hear endlessly about how we will suffer more heatwaves, without any recognition that warmer temperatures would lead to fewer people dying of cold. Yet the latter would be a far bigger benefit than the former a disbenefit. That statisticians in Britain measure ‘excess winter deaths’ rather than ‘excess summer deaths’ is an indication that in a temperate climate, at least, cold is a far bigger killer than heat…
Without a balanced critique of the evidence a climate change report is just propaganda.

November 28, 2014 3:31 pm

29 Nov: Anna Pearson: Climate change threatens Santa’s hometown
Will climate change kill Father Christmas?
A Canterbury academic says that if the big man has to drive his sleigh through slush, the world’s “Santa tourism superpower” – Finnish Lapland – will suffer.
New research published in the Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism examined the implications of climate change for “place branding and marketing in a high-latitude context, some of the most rapidly changing environments in the world”.
Its main focus was Rovaniemi, the capital of Lapland, marketed as the “official hometown of Santa Claus”.
University of Canterbury marketing professor Michael Hall said Rovaniemi was “the primary illustration of Christmas branding that is threatened by climate change”…
The Christmas season was “huge” business and incredibly important for tourism in peripheral, isolated high-latitude destinations such as Rovaniemi, he said. A survey showed snow was an essential factor in its tourism appeal…
Tourists might be able to head further north for snow at Christmas time, Hall said, but “that does not help the longer-term problem of climate change”…
“Climate change may not kill Santa Claus but the message that his home is being destroyed may be a powerful enough story that helps to curb the threat that climate change brings to polar environments and places.”
Santa and his helpers don’t look at all concerned!
22 Nov: Youtube: Christmas Opening 2014 in Santa Claus’ Hometown Rovaniemi in Lapland Finland

November 28, 2014 3:40 pm

Geologists can adjust data as expertly as climate scientists. From :
Sulfur Dioxide Emission Rate estimation caveat: Starting in 2014, we report the emission rate estimated by a new, more accurate method. The numbers increase by a factor of 2-4 but the actual emission rate has not changed.

Eugene WR Gallun
November 28, 2014 4:03 pm

The best turkey to have for Thanksgiving is Wild Turkey.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
November 28, 2014 4:09 pm

Wild Turkey shots with Jack Daniels Reserve shots chasers . . .

November 28, 2014 4:05 pm

Open Thread? OK

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  dbstealey
November 28, 2014 5:23 pm

dbstealey, okay I’ll dance in this minefield with you. I’ll lead what do you know of the campaigns of Eugene of Savoy against the turks?

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 28, 2014 6:38 pm

All I vaguely recall [without looking anything up – honest] is that he stopped the Islamists and pushed them out of eastern Europe.
Why did you ask? What we see today are really just rabble filling a political vacuum.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 28, 2014 8:32 pm

dbstealey “What we see today are really just rabble filling a political vacuum.”
A Pew opinion poll in 2013 reports that 88% of Muslims in Egypt favor the death penalty for any Muslim abandoning their religion (apostasy).
31% of Muslims in UK agree.
I don’t get the political vacuum point.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 28, 2014 8:51 pm

dbstealey to few understand that this has been a war that has lasted over 1,400 years. E of S was just one of many that stopped them. The campaigns in eastern europe from 1700 to 1912 are why the balkans self destructed in the late 1980s. How can I explain? I look at the two web sites and yawn and say you just figuring that out??? History is my thing but not religious. You have to read about it.
There is a reason why most navies of europe have named a ship Prince Eugene or Eugene of Savoy. He held back the darkness. I asked to see if you knew and you did that is all And I like him