Feel free to discuss topics within the bound of regular discussions here at WUWT.
Regular programming will resume this weekend.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Feel free to discuss topics within the bound of regular discussions here at WUWT.
Regular programming will resume this weekend.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My comment was intended for Neil Jordan’s link to the Hockey Schtick paper on Solar correlation.
@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…
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.
Auto
@TLM
..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… er..um… “the Catastrophic Collapse of the NHS and our Pensions System, due to old folk living longer…’
See how it’s done?
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 ..
Is the on-again/off-again behavior of this “el-Nino” real or just my impression? Can you think of another that behaved similarly?
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:
Winter trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Spring trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Summer trend RISE IN TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES
Fall trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
Annual trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
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.
“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)
And yet there are claims that 2014 will easily or likely be the hottest year on record.
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!
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.
Pamela
Hope you have a happy time in your new home and new job.
tonyb
congratz Pam! 🙂
Very exciting and invigorating life changes for you. Hear’s to your wonderful new beginning!
“Here’s …. “
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!
Pamela,
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’.
Auto
I experienced 55 years without the internet. Gee, it was bad, but we did have a lot of fun!!!!
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
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.
John
I’m too old to remember where the Blue Mountains are, but hopefully, the east side is the drier side.
Good luck Pamela.
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)
Try theory C, (and start reading different blogs).
nick,
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.
Genghis November 28, 2014 at 8:11 am
nick,
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:
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070911042918/earth/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
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.
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.
Your theory C? Suggested blogs?
Theory A + Theory B = Theory C?
Any more thoughts, on Schiphol buying 167 Teslas, as taxis?
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/21/amsterdam-airport-enlists-167-tesla-taxis
Will it work, or will this be another Green folly, with dying battery-drained Teslas scattered all over Holland?
Ralph
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.
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.
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…
This was an interesting thread concerning Big Data and machine learning: http://www.bit.ly/1xSIVdS
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.
Climate change is real – ‘coz’ that’s what the climate does.
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.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/26/3597280/how-to-talk-to-climate-denier-uncle-thanksgiving/
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?
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.
Welcome to the asylum Steve. Do any of the lemmings over @ur momisugly 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.
Warm is a pleasant walk in the park. GK
Lowest ever winter deaths recorded
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30243635
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.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.at/2014/11/derivation-of-effective-radiating.html
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.
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.
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.
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?
affects the paper, not “effects the paper”
a question to the experts.
Is there any other way for the planet to lose heat, apart from radiation into space ?
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.
thanks David. I didnt even know the sun rotated till Anthony enlightened me. lol
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.
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..
cheers
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?
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.
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?
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.
Bernie
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-30245209
“Free speech for me, but not for thee” is often heard on this side of the pond also.
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.
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.
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?
Economists take on Little Ice Age:
Abstract
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. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoas/1414091217.
Behind a paywall. You can get it if you have an account with Euclid.
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.
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.
Beautiful view – of the rain in the Sahara.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/348kfpu.jpg
Not so beautiful in the South of France, where they had floods with a lot of damage and several drowned…
nickreality65
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?
There is no spoon. Red on!
Remember. you must put effort in to get something out. Try this (the most instructive site on this topic in the Universe) .
http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/
…and just wait for the fools to come out.
Thanks for the laugh… try these instead, they use science.
http://www.biocab.org/Total_Emisivity_CO2.html
http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
Dug Cotton? Coordinates?
Its not CO2
November 27, 2014 at 8:29 pm
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.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/partners/advsustainableenergy0514/sharing-risks-rewards-and-responsibilities-with-first-nations-partners/article18773632/