It has been quite awhile since we’ve had an open thread on WUWT, so let’s have one. As usual, stay on topic per this blog’s usual discussions, and keep it civil. I’m particularly interested in hearing from readers about topics and issues we may not have covered that would be relevant for future posts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In case anyone missed this earlier in the month. The WUWT troll blogger “…and Then There’s Physics” is really Ken Rice a Reader of Astronomy and Public Relations Director at the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2015/01/who-is-and-then-theres-physics.html
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE ONE OF THE REGULARS AT WUWT do a piece comparing Micheal Crichton’s climate prediction versus the IPCC models, complete with his Author’s Message from “State of Fear”.
Okay, latest surface station “say, WHAT?!” moment.
So I’m toodling along at work (in a law office) and I see a case where it all hangs on the temperature (ice or no ice?). So naturally, I’m all of a sudden interested. Well, I check it out and even though it’s a Class 4 ASOS, it’s nowhere near cold enough for ice. Now, ASOS reads max/min every hour, so that’s fine. So the attorney is plenty happy.
Then the attorney casually remarks, you know the guy at the airport said they only use dry bulb. Say, WHAT?! Okay, I don’t know if NOAA is ignoring the wet-bulb reading, but I mean, like the whole idea is to avoid icing. So why on earth would the airport not bother with wet bulb? Better by far to ignore dry bulb, so far as I can see. Even though that would result in slightly lower readings, you know.
Like, whatever . . .
As I understand it, various institutions (primarily universities but I also imagine some environmental organizations) have received from the federal government billions of grant dollars to study the effects of AGW. If such government funding is anything like contractor funding in support of national defense, many if not most of the AGW studies originate with the government’s issuing a “Request for Research Proposal.” I’ve always had the feeling that the environmentalist lobby and the potential for new taxes have influenced the awarding of AGW grant money in favor of identifying/establishing the negative aspects of AGW while giving short shrift to identifying/establishing any positive effects that might accrue. If true, the Requests for Research Proposals will contain wording to the effect that the successful applicant’s research will establish a detrimental relationship between AGW and some desirable aspect of nature. If someone has the time and inclination, for the published AGW papers that were funded in this manner, I’d like to know the fraction of the studies whose Request For Research Proposal was worded to obtain evidence that AGW is bad. I don’t have the time or the resources to perform this analysis; but if someone does, I’d be interested in the results.
Yes, where is the grant money to find out if the skeptical “point of view” is correct?
Has WUWT received any US federal grant money?
Has this study recieved any grant money?:
PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.
Chico, CA July 29th, 2012 – 12 PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:
Oops i forgot Watts et al. 2012 the link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
Scripps in La Jolla is following oxygen levels in the atmosphere. It is 20.946% by volume now and has been decreasing .000019% per year. As you know oxygen arises when plants split water by photosynthesis. The hydrogen is tacked onto CO2 to make carbohydrates and the oxygen is shed. [Animals strip hydrogen from carbohydrates and combine it with oxygen to make water.]The CO2 stimulates plant growth. Do a little bacteriology or hot-house gardening and you will be surprised at CO2’s effect. If oxygen keeps falling, we may need the CO2 to enhance water splitting by plants and bring the oxygen level back to optimum.
Not to forget that those same plants just turn around and take back a bunch of the oxygen they released to oxidize a whole lot of those sugars that they just made.
Is that 0.000019% of 20.946% or of 100%?
Oxygen decreasing by .000019% per year. Wow that’s alarming, how long before its 20.000%?
I know that James Lovelock is not flavour of the month here, but he did survive and thrive as an independent scientist and Gaia did catch the zeitgeist won the man considerable acclaim.
Just finished reading his life’s journey “Homage to Gaia”, quite a frank, honest description of the ups and downs of being an independent scientist as well as science as it is practiced on both sides of the Atlantic.
Of interest me, on pages 252 and 253 is his understanding of an active (for life) atmosphere, say here on Earth versus the passive dead atmospheres of Venus and Mars.
He argues that even the N2 is an anomaly, always reacting with O2 to form Nitric Acid that dissolves in the sea but is returned to the atmosphere but bacterial action (nothing specific mentioned) returns it to the air.
The part I find interesting, is where he says that the atmosphere is continuously burning as a “cool flame”, as far UV ignites O2 and Methane in the upper atmosphere. But there is stability in the system provided by life.
A source of Stratospheric warmth and a new CO2 source?
Some of us look more kindly now upon Lovelock than previously, since he has declared that he exaggerated the impending catastrophe of Global Warming®.
As far as I know, he now thinks it will be bad but not that bad and we don’t know when and that deniers are no better than alarmists, and we’ll have to suspend democracy for a while to deal with it.
There’s no shortage of clever people discovering they were wrong and now they’re right in one seamless manoeuvre.
As for “warmth” in the stratosphere, it seems replacing trivial amounts of methane with trivial amounts of CO2 would not be a heat gain.
29 Sep 2012 Here is what one man wrote in a letter to Torridge district council objecting to plans to erect an 84 metre turbine at Witherdon Wood in one of the loveliest parts of North Devon.
I am James Lovelock, scientist and author, known as the originator of Gaia theory, a view of the Earth that sees it as a self-regulating entity that keeps the surface environment always fit for life… I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.
Topics not covered?
What are our talking points beyond the pause? Easy, if it gets colder, but what if there is another ladder up? Even in the satellite records?
Why is global warming so harmfull that we should invest trillions to avoid it? Will there be problems in the warm parts of the world beyond non-existing extreme events.
What is the global warming debate really about? Populism? The future of mankind’s energy sources and usage? Redistribution of wealth? Extracting money to the billionaires? Where is the price of oil going? Is coal dirty?
If I was to say it was 298 degrees in Brisbane at noon on Sunday 22 January 2105. I would guarantee that 95%+ of journalists would not know what the hell I was talking about.
I also suspect a significant portion of the so-called “climate scientists” would also not know what the hell I was talking about.
Nor should they. Kelvin is not referred to in degrees.
One of the common traits of alarmists I’ve noticed is they like to predict the future, and it’s always bad. In their world, there is always something just ahead that is frightening, Their claims make good headlines and their press releases with doom get repeated and reported as facts. They demand action now. Don’t think, act. It’s more political and personality based than scientific.
I’ve also noticed that the opinions of many skeptics come more from data than emotion. There’s more questioning and curiousity. More debate. It seems more scientific to me.
I prefer the fact based scientific approach over the sensational fortune telling of the climate swamis.
It may be worthwhile to present decade-wise starting from 1850: met network starting from 1850 to date. Met network, urbanization change — spread in important cities, and changes in irrigated agriculture over some important parts of the globe..
Secondly, the met data observational errors [all types]
Thirdly, the satellite data pros-cons with different groups
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I doubt the metadata is sufficient for the necessary degree of accuracy.
Samurai, apologies if someone up thread mentioned it and I missed it but google Chai Agassi A Better Place. He raised several hundred million U.S. to build out the battery swap concept. At least he didn’t have huge amounts of U.S TARP $$$$$$$$$.
Here’s a humorous idea for a WUWT thread:
Compile a 50/50 list of real (but absurd) and fake alarmist predictions of warming effects and challenge readers to guess which ones are real.
Inventing the made-up effects could be crowd-sourced to WUWTers initially.
===============
“Climate Change Is Real!”
–Won’t it be fun to chant that if the climate turns sharply colder.
One of the current explanations for “pause” in global surface temperatures is that the heat is bypassing the surface and going into the deep ocean. So the argument is, if this heat is actually taken into account global warming has not “stopped” over the past 15 years or so. Much more importantly, there seems to be a suggestion that this stored heat will one day come back to the surface and cause the temperatures to increase again. But how can heat be transferred from the colder (even after the supposed recent warming) deep ocean to the surface which is at a higher temperature? Could you get someone to do a post on this?
NASA was unable to find any heat in the ocean abyss.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
“Oct. 6, 2014: The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.”
See my next post once Hadcrut4 is in.
The average house uses 1KW/Hr, so it does not take much brains to see that charging 85KW/Hrs in one hour is the equivalent of the power draw of 85 Homes, all from one point?
Blackout or new massive electrical feed.
Only the supercharger stations can charge 85kWh in one hour. The best home charger (dual-charger, 80 amp), takes 5 hours.
From the University of Western Australia’s Psychology Department, on framing and normative messaging, to change the climate change agenda! http://pindanpost.com/2015/02/20/framing-and-normative-messaging-climate-psychology-poppycock/
Who knows what they mean?
The UK Labour Party ( the gift that keeps on giving) has appointed John ( 2 jags) Prescott minister with responsibility for climate change .
As they say, you couldn’t make it up.
Ah only one of those jags was his. The other was a “company car” (Govn’t). Much like his two houses, one was his, the other was a “company house” (Govn’t). The guy is a prat and a hypocrite.
I think it’s fascinating what phonies were dealing with. On the one hand we have supposed alarmists in congress usually dems who conintue to bl
i’ve posted the following & more on the “Unsubstantiated Claim Over One Cyclone: Climate Change is “Expanding the Tropics” thread, but am trying to bring this to the attention of cyclone experts.
a single newspaper article in australia informed us the decision to upgrade TC Marcia from Cat 2 to Cat 5 came from data from Uni of Wisconsin-Madison: Space Science & Engineering Centre which, on its website, says it is associated with NOAA Satellite & Information Service, NESDIS.
interestingly, no MSM picked up this Press Release:
20 Feb: Eureka Alert: NASA-JAXA’s TRMM satellite sees rapid intensification of category-5 Marcia
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
At 11 p.m. local time (1324 UTC) on Feb. 19, 2015, the Precipitation Radar on the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite observed the eyewall of Tropical Cyclone Maria in the Coral Sea. At that time, Marcia was rapidly intensifying to category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, a little more than 12 hours before an expected landfall in Queensland, Australia.
The TRMM satellite is managed by both NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency…
In this case, the heavy precipitation (the red volume of the image) near the ocean surface is the powerful base of a hot tower in the southwest quadrant of the eyewall.
A “hot tower” is a rain cloud that reaches at least to the top of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere. It extends approximately nine miles (14.5 km) high in the tropics. These towers are called “hot” because they rise to such altitude due to the large amount of latent heat. Water vapor releases this latent heat as it condenses into liquid. NASA research found that a tropical cyclone with a hot tower in its eyewall was twice as likely to intensify within the next six hours, than a cyclone that lacked a tower…READ ALL
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/nsfc-nts022015.php
20 Feb: Eureka Alert: NASA-JAXA’s TRMM satellite sees rapid intensification of category-5 Marcia
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
At 11 p.m. local time (1324 UTC) on Feb. 19, 2015, the Precipitation Radar on the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite observed the eyewall of Tropical Cyclone Maria in the Coral Sea. At that time, Marcia was rapidly intensifying to category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, a little more than 12 hours before an expected landfall in Queensland, Australia.
The TRMM satellite is managed by both NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency…
In this case, the heavy precipitation (the red volume of the image) near the ocean surface is the powerful base of a hot tower in the southwest quadrant of the eyewall.
A “hot tower” is a rain cloud that reaches at least to the top of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere. It extends approximately nine miles (14.5 km) high in the tropics. These towers are called “hot” because they rise to such altitude due to the large amount of latent heat. Water vapor releases this latent heat as it condenses into liquid. NASA research found that a tropical cyclone with a hot tower in its eyewall was twice as likely to intensify within the next six hours, than a cyclone that lacked a tower…READ ALL
redress in comments has some australian data that does not show a Cat 5. our Bureau of Meteorology is now in damage control.
Joannenova: Hyping Cyclones
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/nsfc-nts022015.php
calling all cyclone experts! help.
The reason why a Category 5 for Cyclone [“MARCIA”] recently in Australia is not the same as in US is the different classifications used by the two Basins viz. Atlantica/East Pacific & Southern Pacific (Australia)
As per Saffir- Simpson [Hurricane] Wind Scale: Used for Atlantic & East Pacific Ocean
Category Five ≥70 m/s, ≥137 knots Winds & ≥157 mph, ≥252 km/h Gusts
Category Four 58–70 m/s, 113–136 knots Winds & 130–156 mph, 209–251 km/h Gusts
Category Three 50–58 m/s, 96–112 knots Winds & 111–129 mph, 178–208 km/h Gusts
Category Two 43–49 m/s, 83–95 knots Winds & 96–110 mph, 154–177 km/h Gusts
Category One 33–42 m/s, 64–82 knots Winds & 74–95 mph, 119–153 km/h Gusts
Australian tropical cyclone intensity scale
Category Five >107 kt>200 km/h Sustained winds >151 kt >279 km/h Gusts
Category Four 86-107 kt 160-200 km/h Sustained winds 122-151 kt 225-279 km/h Gusts
Category Three 64-85 kt 118-159 km/h Sustained winds 90-121 kt 165-224 km/h Gusts
Category Two 48-63 kt 89-117 km/h Sustained winds 68-89 kt 125-164 km/h Gusts
Category One 34-47 kt 63-88 km/h Sustained winds 49-67 kt 91-125 km/h Gusts
Tropical Low <34 kt <63 km/h Sustained winds <49 kt <91 km/h Gusts
Typo in name of Cyclone… read as “MARCIA”
Consider this:
http://ber.parawag.net/images/Western_Pacific_Holocene_SST.jpg
I think that this blog site could do a series of posts about what we think the temperatures have been over the last 20,000 years and what that means in terms of the alarmism today over a few hundredths of a degree in “adjusted” temperature.
I would like to know (in laymans language) why Harries et al (2006?) isn’t all the Author’s claim. Is it that the paper is flawed/limited or perhaps that the reduction in OLR in the CO2 band is negligible in real terms?
Out of pure passion for science, I am following WUWT’s Sea Ice Page very closely for years already.
While the extend, as well as thickness, of the Arctic Sea Ice has substantially rebound over the past two years, I am noticing something strange happening right at the coast of Siberia, actually.
While a lot of the Arctic sea ice has grown to – or has even reached above – two meters of thickness already this winter, the ice right at the siberian coast in some places is almost non-existent, like giant Polynias have opened up there.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnowcast.gif
These areas are almost static for at least two months already and can even be seen in the Sea Ice Page’s temperature graphs, because they show a slightly warmer surface temperature than the surrounding solid ice.
Is this phenomenon caused only by the prevailing winds blowing the ice away from the Siberian coastline for several months in a row (which I think is rather unlikely), thus exposing open ocean to the sattelites’ view, or are there perhaps other reasons at work, too – like geological phenomena (submarine volcanism) or perhaps the massive use of icebreakers by the russian fleet, to keet the vital northeast passage open for merchant vessels? – inquiring minds want to know.
Cheers,
Michael from Germany
This is the result of circulation. Polar vortex falls far south of the US and the air will continue to flow over the Atlantic towards Iceland. Notice that not frozen Baltic Sea.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.gif
You can also see that, because of circulation poorly grows ice in the North Pacific.
It is a warning sign which should not be ignored when at the time of the Arctic sea ice annual max, the ice thickness around Labrador coast is same as is around the Novaya Zemlya 15 -20 degrees further north.
See my comment: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/21/weekend-open-thread-9/#comment-1865452
The American Physical Society was doing an review last year on its position statement on climate change. Does anyone know what has happened to that effort? I know Judith Curry among others were involved. Has a new statement been circulated?
Something to talk about and do a post on perhaps.
I read at http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html that the moon gets “boiling hot” despite having no atmosphere. (I have read the same at many other places so this does not seem to be controversial in any way)
It seems to me that the climate “experts” who claim that the sunlight hitting the earth is not hot enough. I see that -40C or 168 W/m2 is the “power of the sun” so we need CO2’s magic to warm the earth. I simply don’t see this. I think the atmosphere distributes heat towards the poles and mitigates heat loss at night. I don’t see how the magic molecule does much of anything.
Computer climate models predicting 6’ sea level increases for NYC are most likely based on major melting of the ice sheets. Let’s check in with the global experts on GCMs, IPCC AR5 TS.6.
“In some aspects of the climate system, including changes in drought, changes in tropical cyclone activity, Antarctic warming, Antarctic sea ice extent, and Antarctic mass balance, confidence in attribution to human influence remains low due to modelling uncertainties and low agreement between scientific studies. {10.3.1, 10.5.2, 10.6.1}”
“In Antarctica, available data are inadequate to assess the status of change of many characteristics of sea ice (e.g., thickness and volume). {4.2.3}”
“There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability. {13.5.2, 13.5.3}”
By their own admission, IPCC GCMs cannot predict and IPCC experts cannot agree on the future behavior of ice sheets, sea ice and sea levels.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
I have and do agree that all the hype about “climate change” “global warming” sea rise and such is propaganda to keep the panic going.
How ever within the next 10 years it will be as dust in the wind.
When not IF the new power systems come on line This issue will be an, Oh! that silly mistake.
There is at this time a power plant in operation that does not require fossil fuel. I kid you Not!
But it does not end there, the fuel required for this power plant is in abundance. reserves estimated to last a 100,000 years. What am I referring too find out for your self.
Energy Flow Destinations
Quadrillion (E15) Btu, 2013
Petroleum Exports 7.19 6.6%
Other Exports 4.62 4.2%
Residential 21.13 19.3%
Commercial 17.93 16.4%
Industrial 31.46 28.8%
Transportation 27.01 24.7%
Total 109.34
Fossil Fuels 79.79 73.0%
Renewable 9.29 8.5%
73% of US energy is fossil fuel based. Carbon free? Good luck with that!