Test

SMPTE color bars – Click for your own test pattern kit

This page is for posters to test comments prior to submitting them to WUWT. Your tests will be deleted in a while, though especially interesting tests, examples, hints, and cool stuff will remain for quite a while longer.

Some things that don’t seem to work any more, or perhaps never did, are kept in Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT.

Formatting in comments

WordPress does not provide much documentation for the HTML formatting permitted in comments. There are only a few commands that are useful, and a few more that are pretty much useless.

A typical HTML formatting command has the general form of <name>text to be formatted</name>. A common mistake is to forget the end command. Until WordPress gets a preview function, we have to live with it.

N.B. WordPress handles some formatting very differently than web browsers do. A post of mine shows these and less useful commands in action at WUWT.

N.B. You may notice that the underline command, <u>, is missing. WordPress seems to suppress for almost all users, so I’m not including it here. Feel free to try it, don’t expect it to work.

Name Sample Result
b (bold) This is <b>bold</b> text This is bold text
Command strong also does bolding.
i (italics) This is <i>italicized</i> text This is italicized text
Command em (emphasize) also does italics.
a (anchor) See <a href=http://wermenh.com>My home page</a> See My home page
A URL by itself (with a space on either side) is often adequate in WordPress. It will make a link to that URL and display the URL, e.g. See http://wermenh.com.

Some source on the web is presenting anchor commands with other parameters beyond href, e.g. rel=nofollow. In general, use just href=url and don’t forget the text to display to the reader.

blockquote (indent text) My text
<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>
More of my text
My text

quoted text

More of my text

Quoted text can be many paragraphs long.
WordPress italicizes quoted text (and the <i> command enters normal text).
strike This is <strike>text with strike</strike> This is text with strike
pre (“preformatted” – use for monospace display) <pre>These lines are bracketed<br>with &lt;pre> and &lt;/pre>
These lines are bracketed
with <pre> and </pre>
Preformatted text, generally done right. Use it when you have a table or something else that will look best in monospace. Each space is displayed, something that <code> (next) doesn’t do.
code (use for monospace display) <code>Wordpress handles this very differently</code> WordPress handles this very differently
See https://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/#comment-65319 to see what this really does.

Youtube videos

Using the URL for a YouTube video creates a link like any other URL. However, WordPress accepts the HTML for “embedded” videos. From the YouTube page after the video finishes, click on the “embed” button and it will suggest HTML like:

<iframe width="560" height="315"
        src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yaBNjTtCxd4"
        frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
</iframe>

WordPress will convert this into an internal square bracket command, changing the URL and ignoring the dimension. You can use this command yourself, and use its options for dimensions. WordPress converts the above into something like:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaBNjTtCxd4&w=640&h=480]

Use this form and change the w and h options to suit your interests.

Images in comments

If WordPress thinks a URL refers to an image, it will display the image
instead of creating a link to it. The following rules may be a bit excessive,
but they should work:

  1. The URL must end with .jpg, .gif, or .png. (Maybe others.)
  2. The URL must be the only thing on the line.
  3. This means you don’t use <img>, which WordPress ignores and displays nothing.
  4. This means WordPress controls the image size.
  5. <iframe> doesn’t work either, it just displays a link to the image.

If you have an image whose URL doesn’t end with the right kind of prefix, there may be two options if the url includes attributes, i.e. if it has a question mark followed by attribute=value pairs separated by ampersands.

Often the attributes just provide information to the server about the source of the URL. In that case, you may be able to just delete everything from the question mark to the end.

For some URLs, e.g. many from FaceBook, the attributes provide lookup information to the server and it can’t be deleted. Most servers don’t bother to check for unfamiliar attributes, so try appending “&xxx=foo.jpg”. This will give you a URL with one of the extensions WordPress will accept.

WordPress will usually scale images to fit the horizontal space available for text. One place it doesn’t is in blockquoted text, there it seems to display fullsize and large images overwrite the rightside nav bar text.

Special characters in comments

Those of us who remember acceptance of ASCII-68 (a specification released in 1968) are often not clever enough to figure out all the nuances of today’s international character sets. Besides, most keyboards lack the keys for those characters, and that’s the real problem. Even if you use a non-ASCII but useful character like ° (as in 23°C) some optical character recognition software or cut and paste operation is likely to change it to 23oC or worse, 230C.

Nevertheless, there are very useful characters that are most reliably entered as HTML character entities:

Type this To get Notes
&amp; & Ampersand
&lt; < Less than sign
Left angle bracket
&bull; Bullet
&deg; ° Degree (Use with C and F, but not K (kelvins))
&#8304;
&#185;
&#178;
&#179;
&#8308;

¹
²
³
Superscripts (use 8304, 185, 178-179, 8308-8313 for superscript digits 0-9)
&#8320;
&#8321;
&#8322;
&#8323;



Subscripts (use 8320-8329 for subscript digits 0-9)
&pound; £ British pound
&ntilde; ñ For La Niña & El Niño
&micro; µ Mu, micro
&plusmn; ± Plus or minus
&times; × Times
&divide; ÷ Divide
&ne; Not equals
&nbsp; Like a space, with no special processing (i.e. word wrapping or multiple space discarding)
&gt; > Greater than sign
Right angle bracket
Generally not needed

Various operating systems and applications have mechanisms to let you directly enter character codes. For example, on Microsoft Windows, holding down ALT and typing 248 on the numeric keypad may generate the degree symbol. I may extend the table above to include these some day, but the character entity names are easier to remember, so I recommend them.

Latex markup

WordPress supports Latex. To use it, do something like:

$latex P = e\sigma AT^{4}$     (Stefan-Boltzmann's law)

$latex \mathscr{L}\{f(t)\}=F(s)$

to produce

P = e\sigma AT^{4}     (Stefan-Boltzmann’s law)

\mathscr{L}\{f(t)\}=F(s)

Linking to past comments

Each comment has a URL that links to the start of that comment. This is usually the best way to refer to comment a different post. The URL is “hidden” under the timestamp for that comment. While details vary with operating system and browser, the best way to copy it is to right click on the time stamp near the start of the comment, choose “Copy link location” from the pop-up menu, and paste it into the comment you’re writing. You should see something like https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/15/central-park-in-ushcnv2-5-october-2012-magically-becomes-cooler-in-july-in-the-dust-bowl-years/#comment-1364445.

The “#<label>” at the end of the URL tells a browser where to start the page view. It reads the page from the Web, searches for the label and starts the page view there. As noted above, WordPress will create a link for you, you don’t need to add an <a> command around it.

One way to avoid the moderation queue.

Several keywords doom your comment to the moderation queue. One word, “Anthony,” is caught so that people trying to send a note to Anthony will be intercepted and Anthony should see the message pretty quickly.

If you enter Anthony as An<u>th</u>ony, it appears to not be caught,
so apparently the comparison uses the name with the HTML within it and
sees a mismatch.

Advertisements

236 thoughts on “Test

  1. I just had another thought about underlines.

    I think I discovered that if I could get around the automatic spam trap by writing Anthony with an empty HTML command inside, e.g. Ant<b></b>hony .

    What happens when I try that with underline?

    Apologies in advance to the long-suffering mods, at least one of these comments may get caught by the spam trap.

  2. WordPress only displays images for URLs on their own line and ending with a image file extension. If I delete the attribute string above, i.e. ?token=I7JQbQli1swRgik%2BKnIKAmCk52Y%3D then what’s left should work:

    • Now one that would permit image display:

      Update: Right clicking to get the image’s url gave me a URL that goes through WP’s cache via (slashes replaced by spaces, periods by dashes) i2-wp-com wermenh-com images winter0708 P3020227_snowbank7-jpg

    • Now just the image without a suffix:

      Update: This image uses the same URL as the previous cached image. That means we can’t use a changing suffix to force a trip around the cache any more for HTTP images. I’ll play with HTTPS later.

      • Reply to Ric W ==> Thanks — I was fielding comments on an essay using an unfamiliar tablet, and wasn’t sure which and/or both were part of HTML5. I usually use the old ClimateAudit comment Greasemonkey tool, even though its formatting is funky these days, for the tags. Don’t suppose you could update that add-in?

      • IIRC, Greasemonkey was written for CA, which uses a different theme that does WUWT.

        I don’t have the time to figure out the JavaScript code or whatever it’s written in, and I don’t have the ability to make changes that deep in WUWT.

        Instead of Greasemonkey, I often use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/its-all-text/ . It can open up an external editor, so it has saved my butt a few times when WP loses a post I was making.

  3. Hey, what happened to the old smiley face?? When I tried to post it, this appeared:

    I wonder if WordPress changed any others?

     ☹ ☻

    The old smiley was more subtle; less in-your-face. The new one is way too garish.

    If WP keeps that up, I’ll just have to use this lame replacement:

    :-)

    Or even worse:

    ;-)

  4. a test to see if images on facebook can be linked without the proper suffix

    [Curious, it worked!– I’ll have to experiment with this some. – Ric]

  5. Comment in moderation, testing for “bad” word:

    Sorry Chris. Voting is not equivalent to driving.

    If I registered to vote in NY four years ago, and then move to NJ, I am not allowed to continue to vote in NY. That would be voter fra*ud.

    What also is voter fra^ud is busing people from a non closely contested state to a closely contested state, i.e. voting under a fra*udulent address:

    (Under-cover video by Project Veritas shows Scott Foval admitting “we’ve been bussing people in” for “fifty years and we’re not going to stop now”.)

    Verifying correct addresses is an extremely important step in fighting various forms of voter fra*ud. You might have known that. Or should have.

    [Sometimes contributors get a bit anxious at the length of time their post takes to get through moderation. Be assured that they will almost always get through and the trap has been because of words like “fraud, scam, denier etc. “. Sometimes it is because of having a plethora of links.

    My advice, such as it is, is not to be too impatient. The moderators here are volunteers and sometimes there may be a gap in coverage leading to a delay. Take my word that if you haven’t been abusive, used a fake ID or been a Sky Dragon type you will get through . . . Merry Christmas . . mod]

  6. Test III …

    Sorry Chris. Voting is not equivalent to driving.

    If I registered to vote in NY four years ago, and then move to NJ, I am not allowed to continue to vote in NY. That would be voter fraud.

    What also is voter fraud is busing people from a non closely contested state to a closely contested state, i.e. voting under a fraudulent address:

    [I can’t seem to get my Youtube embed working. For the video, ask Dr. Youtube about “Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud”.]

    (Under-cover video by Project Veritas shows Scott Foval admitting “we’ve been bussing people in” for “fifty years and we’re not going to stop now”.)

    Verifying correct addresses is an extremely important step in fighting various forms of voter fraud. You might have known that. Or should have.

  7. I’m ending up in moderation again—and I have had comments approved. I am considering changing to my real name and see if that helps. Any suggestions? I removed links to my blogs and that worked for a while. I don’t understand what I’m doing that is causing the problem and causing you more work.

    • fobdangerclose: Same thing with me. Some comments went into moderation, some just vanished entirely. One showed up much later.

  8. Back to the mails. 1077829152. Jones reviews and spikes a skeptic article, ‘It is having a go at the CRU temperature data – not the latest vesion, but the one you used in MBH98 !!’ Then some shenanigans of some sort I don’t quite get: ‘Can I ask you something in CONFIDENCE – don’t email around, especially not to Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that MBH98 and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record – from models or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do. Tim is reviewing them – I want to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with discussing them with others. So forget this email when you reply.’

    They have suspicions of the American Geophysical Union journal GRL. Too many Contrarian viewpoints getting through.

    A while later, another fired revolver the non-internet media appear to find completely uninteresting:

    1089318616

    From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

    … [Rubbishes a paper that’s bad for them]
    The other paper by MM [McIntyre & McKitrick] is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again.
    … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers
    Phil

    He also says that fellow scientist Roger Pielke is ‘losing all credibility’ by deiging to reply to a skeptic.

    This one made me laugh:

    1091798809

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Janice Lough”
    Subject: Re: liked the paper
    Date: Fri Aug 6 09:26:49 2004

    Janice,
    Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site. Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.

    Damn them! Damn their impudence!

    In February 2005 Jones will respond to a request by Australian scientist Warwick Hughes for his raw data with the words: ‘We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’ [Not in the leaked mails, but see here, for example.]

    1092167224
    Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear Phil and Gabi,
    I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people. In the process of trying to clean it up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. …

    1092433030. Grant business. 17 million Euros up for grabs. Not enough for Keith. ‘While this is a large sum, I am sure you will appreciate that when distributed among many partners and stretched over five years it imposes a severe limitation on the total number of partners that can be feasibly included.’

    1092581797 made me chuckle with its tales of urgent meetings in Geneva, Trieste, Marrakech and Potsdam. I expect it will seem less amusing when the rest of us aren’t allowed or can’t afford to go there.

    Oh next is something from the Russians again. They’re probably still in Siberia. That makes me feel better.

    But a few mails later Phil Jones is off to Delhi and Seattle. This makes me unhappy again. No, it makes me laugh. People flying all over the planet on an urgent quest to stop other people flying all over the planet always do. 1097159316

    Shit, now Keith is going to Austria in a few days, after having just returned from some other unspecified travels. I am happy for him. All right, I resent it. I shouldn’t be reading this. This is like one of the books my mum reads about glamorous people going to glamorous places.

    Fuck, the next one from Phil Jones: ‘I met this guy in Utrecht last week … ‘ Can’t they stay put for a single frigging minute? I am glad their theory is a crock of shit, because if it was true, the irony of their single-handedly having doomed us all flying around the world spreading the word about it would be unbearable. Mind you, have you seen the pictures of the UEA campus? I wouldn’t spend a minute there either. I hope the poor Russians are getting some money, that’s all I hope. Freezing their gonads off prodding trees while the rest of them gad about the playgrounds of the well-heeled and tenured.

    Concentrate. He’s bad-mouthing Von Storch, a scientist who has gone off-piste, for bad-mouthing the Mann Bradley Hughes papers. I have never badly wanted to go to Utrecht anyway.

  9. TESTS:
    Ok, the above test comment went into moderation. WHY?
    Butu I can see the image didn’t work again. I’m pretty sure this one works:

    Maybe it needs to be httpS (instead of http) ???
    So this version has an S at the end of http:

  10. And — here — they — ARE! :)

    Marching on California! lol

    “On Wisconsin” — Univ. of Wisconsin Marching Band, Rosebowl Parade, Pasadena California

    (youtube)

    As Kevin below said, “CA, take note.”

    #(:))

  11. And — here — they — ARE! :)

    Marching on California! lol

    “On Wisconsin” — Univ. of Wisconsin Marching Band, Rosebowl Parade, Pasadena California

    (youtube)

    As Kevin below said, “CA, take note.”

    #(:))

  12. Test:

    (Fail)

    Ah, I don’t know what I’m doing. I guess I can’t just paste a picture in the comments section.

  13. So I’m looking at the San Jose CA forecast for the next .. 15 days on weather dot com, and we got this (test PRE tag):

    TODAY      Partly Cloudy
    Sat Jan 7      Rain
    Sun Jan 8      Rain / Wind
    Mon Jan 8      Showers
    Tue Jan 10      Rain
    Wed Jan 11      AM Showers
    Thu Jan 12      Showers
    Fri Jan 13      Showers
    Sat Jan 14      Showers
    Sun Jan 15      Showers
    Mon Jan 16      Showers
    Tue Jan 17      Showers
    Wed Jan 18      Showers
    Thu Jan 19      Few Showers
    (that's as far as it goes)
    
  14. Testing the CODE tag which I think has different effects than the PRE tag (we’ll hopefully see):

    There’s ZERO evidence that CO2 is warming the planet. That is expertly explained in this 4 minute video: xxxxxyx

    Funny you point to your version of “all the climate scientists agree” that CO2 is warming the planet. Possibly there’s some minimal warming from CO2, but more likely there’s near none as any warming is fully countered by the negative feedback of low cloud formation. That’s consistent also with the recent temperature data.

    Regardless, it shouldn’t be our job to carry water for the leftists.

    Let them work to prove that CO2 is causing warming. We should do NOTHING to help them along with that goal, and that starts with saying what it unarguably true: there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming.

      • $ CO_{2(gas)} \Leftrightarrow CO_{2(aq)} $ \\
        $CO_{2(aq)} + H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H_{2}CO_{3}$ \\
        $ H_{2}CO_{3} \Leftrightarrow (H^{+} \Leftrightarrow H_{3}O^{=}) + CO_{3}^{-} $ \\
        $XCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{2+} + HCO^{+}_{3}$ [e.g., $CaCO_{3}$, or other alkaline earth metals] \\
        $XHCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{+} + HCO_{3}^{-}$ [e.g., $NaHCO_{3}$, or other alkali metals] \\
        $H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H^{+} + OH^{-}$ \\

        test to see if LaTeX works

      • CO_{2(gas)} \Leftrightarrow CO_{2(aq)}  latex CO_{2(aq)} + H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H_{2}CO_{3}
        H_{2}CO_{3} \Leftrightarrow (H^{+} \Leftrightarrow H_{3}O^{=}) + CO_{3}^{-} latex XCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{2+} + HCO^{+}_{3}$ [e.g., $CaCO_{3}, [or other alkaline earth metals]
        XHCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{+} + HCO_{3}^{-} [e.g., $NaHCO_{3}$, (or other alkali metals)
        $latex H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H^{+} + OH^{-}
        is produced by,

        CO_{2(gas)} \Leftrightarrow CO_{2(aq)}  latex CO_{2(aq)} + H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H_{2}CO_{3}
        H_{2}CO_{3} \Leftrightarrow (H^{+} \Leftrightarrow H_{3}O^{=}) + CO_{3}^{-} latex XCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{2+} + HCO^{+}_{3}$ [e.g., $CaCO_{3}, [or other alkaline earth metals]
        XHCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{+} + HCO_{3}^{-} [e.g., $NaHCO_{3}$, (or other alkali metals)
        $latex H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H^{+} + OH^{-}

      • CO_{2(gas)} \Leftrightarrow CO_{2(aq)}
        CO_{2(aq)} + H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H_{2}CO_{3}
        H_{2}CO_{3} \Leftrightarrow (H^{+} \Leftrightarrow H_{3}O^{=}) + CO_{3}^{-}
        XCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{2+} + HCO^{+}_{3} [e.g., $CaCO_{3}, [or other alkaline earthmetals]$
        XHCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{+} + HCO_{3}^{-} [e.g., $NaHCO_{3}$, (or other alkali metals)]$
        H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H^{+} + OH^{-}
        is produced by

        \CO_{2(gas)} \Leftrightarrow CO_{2(aq)}
        \CO_{2(aq)} + H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H_{2}CO_{3}
        \H_{2}CO_{3} \Leftrightarrow (H^{+} \Leftrightarrow H_{3}O^{=}) + CO_{3}^{-}
        \XCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{2+} + HCO^{+}_{3} [e.g., $CaCO_{3}, [or other alkaline earthmetals]$
        \XHCO_{3} \Leftrightarrow X^{+} + HCO_{3}^{-} [e.g., $NaHCO_{3}$, (or other alkali metals)]$
        \H_{2}O \Leftrightarrow H^{+} + OH^{-}

  15. Satellite Records and Slopes Since 1998 are Not Statistically Significant.

    Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts

    Please put the following graphic below the title:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/detrend:-0.228/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/detrend:+0.228

    As can be seen from the above graphic, the slope is positive from January 1998 to December 2016, however with the error bars, we cannot be 95% certain that warming has in fact taken place since January 1998. The high and low slope lines reflect the margin of error at the 95% confidence limits. If my math is correct, there is about a 30% chance that cooling has taken place since 1998 and about a 70% chance that warming has taken place. The 95% confidence limits for both UAH6.0beta5 and RSS are very similar. Here are the relevant numbers from Nick Stokes’ site for both UAH and RSS:
    https://moyhu.blogspot.ca/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

    For RSS:
    Temperature Anomaly trend
    Jan 1998 to Dec 2016 
    Rate: 0.450°C/Century;
    CI from -0.750 to 1.649;
    t-statistic 0.735;
    Temp range 0.230°C to 0.315°C

    For UAH:
    Temperature Anomaly trend
    Jan 1998 to Dec 2016 
    Rate: 0.476°C/Century;
    CI from -0.813 to 1.765;
    t-statistic 0.724;
    Temp range 0.113°C to 0.203°C

    If you wish to see where warming first becomes statistically significant, see Section 1.
    In addition to the slopes showing statistically insignificant warming, the new records for 2016 over 1998 are also statistically insignificant for both satellite data sets.
    In 2016, RSS beat 1998 by 0.573 – 0.550 = 0.023 or by 0.02 to the nearest 1/100 of a degree. Since this is less than the error margin of 0.1 C, we can say that 2016 and 1998 are statistically tied for first place. However there is still over a 50% chance that 2016 did indeed set a record, but the probability for that is far less than 95% that climate science requires so the 2016 record is statistically insignificant.
    If anyone has an exact percentage here, please let us know, however it should be around a 60% chance that a record was indeed set for RSS.
    In 2016, UAH6.0beta5 beat 1998 by 0.505 – 0.484 = 0.021 or also by 0.02 to the nearest 1/100 of a degree. What was said above for RSS applies here as well.
    My predictions after the June data came in were therefore not correct as I expected 2016 to come in under 1998.

    What about GISS and HadSST3 and HadCRUT4.5?
    The December numbers are not in yet, but GISS will set a statistically significant record for 2016 over its previous record of 2015 since the new average will be more than 0.1 above the 2015 mark.
    HadSST3 will set a new record in 2016, but it will only be by a few hundredths of a degree so it will not be statistically significant.
    HadCRUT4.5 is still up in the air. The present average after 11 months is 0.790. The 2015 average was 0.760. As a result, December needs to come in at 0.438 to tie 2015. The November anomaly was 0.524, so only a further drop of 0.086 is required. This cannot be ruled out, especially since this site shows December 0.089 lower than November:
    http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
    Also worth noting are that UAH dropped by 0.209 from November to December and RSS dropped by 0.162.
    Whatever happens with HadCRUT4.5, 2016 and 2015 will be in a statistical tie with a possible difference in the thousandths of a degree. The difference will be more important from a psychological perspective than a scientific perspective as it will be well within the margin of error.

  16. Here’s a scary bunch of research on sea ice, as it relates to CO2, for anyone who might want to plow through it:

    http://www.natur.gl/fileadmin/user_files/Dokumenter/Afhandlinger/PHD_Dorte_Haubjerg_Soegaardr.pdf

    … very scary.

    … and from S. F. Ackley

    http://oceans11.lanl.gov/trac/CICE/raw-attachment/wiki/WorkshopPresentations/1Ackley.ppt

    … we have THIS:

    Again, processes in ice seem to exist that we might be overlooking in our assessment of the CO2 story. And if such processes exist in sea ice, then do similar processes (or other processes) exist in glacial ice over millions of years, to render our expectations of records derived from ice records a bit overblown ?

  17. artifact of the echo-chamber … that’s a curious way of putting it. What “chamber” are we referring to? — the belief system that understands the role of carbon dioxide in the terrestrial life process ? … where graphs illustrating the truths of this belief system ARE, in fact, artifacts, as are ALL “artifacts” of knowledge ?

    just another, then, implies that such “artifacts” are somehow tainted. And so are you suggesting that the belief system that understands the role of CO2 in the terrestrial life process is somehow tainted ? Do you disbelieve that CO2 has a vital role in the terrestrial life process ? If so, then your tone might illustrate a need for you to review your own beliefs in regard to this substance. Otherwise, why would you not give greater validity to such an “artifact” that clearly shows that photosynthesis of a certain class of plants shuts down, regardless of temperature ?

    At this level of concentration, CO2 is the LIMITING FACTOR. Here’s a pretty good explanation of that idea:

    http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/001/068/Rate%20of%20photosynthesis%20limiting%20factors.pdf

    Limiting Factors

    In 1905, when investigating the factors affecting the rate of photosynthesis, Blackmann
    formulated the Law of limiting factors. This states that the rate of a physiological process will be limited by the factor which is in shortest supply. Any change in the level of a limiting factor will affect the rate of reaction.

    For example, the amount of light will affect the rate of photosynthesis. If there is no light, there will be no photosynthesis. As light intensity increases, the rate of photosynthesis will increase as long as other factors are in adequate supply. As the rate increases, eventually another factor will come into short supply.

    The graph below shows the effect of low carbon dioxide concentration:

    It [CO2] will eventually be insufficient to support a higher rate of photosynthesis, and increasing light intensity will have no effect, so the rate plateaus.

    If a higher concentration of carbon dioxide is supplied, light is again a limiting factor and a higher
    rate can be reached before the rate again plateaus. If carbon dioxide and light levels are high, but temperature is low, increasing temperature will have the greatest effect on reaching a higher rate of photosynthesis.

    Now would 150 ppm wipe out all life above sea level ? Well, considering that most of life depends on plants that thrive in this range, then, maybe not ALL, but a significant percentage to start. And considering that the remaining life might have depended on the life that would die out, then the cascading demise of life would seem to continue onto the next tier too, from which I’m not sure how much farther down the deterioration might progress. But to argue over the word, “all”, in this context is just an exercise in winning a debate, when the REAL point is that ALL life WOULD suffer in this range of CO2.

    • Janice,
      You are simply WAY TOO FUNNY. It must be requested by the management of not only this website but for the sanity of the internet at large, that you refrain from adding any more humorous posts or no one will get any work done due to the constant raucous laughter. Besides that, My cubicle mates are all standing up and looking like Prarie Doggies to see what the commotion is about. (This action also doesn’t help)

  18. Anyone know of a way to use a “double” blockquote command (?) to show a blockquote of a blockquote?

    If this sounds confusing you need to realized I’m confused!

    • Anyone know of a way to use a

      “double” blockquote command

      (?) to show a blockquote of a blockquote?

      If this sounds confusing you need to realized I’m confused!

      • (blockquote)blockquoted text (blockquote)inset blockquoted text(/blockquote) end of original blockquoted text(/blockquote)

        Replace the ( ) with the necessary Carrots to get

        blockquoted text

        inset blockquoted text

        end of original blockquoted text

  19. This is from IPPC AR5.

    Source        Amount    Percent of
                                      PgC/yr      Total
    Natural		
    Respiration and fire        118.7    57.3%
    Ocean out gassing          78.4    37.9%
    Fresh water out gassing   1.0	    0.5%
    Volcanism                         0.1      0.0%
    	                             198.2    95.7%
    Man made
    Fossil fuels                       7.8      3.8%
    Land use changes           1.1      0.5%
                                            8.9      4.3%
    
    Total                            207.1  100.0%
    
  20. SourceAmount (PgC/yr)Percent of Total
    Natural
    Respiration and fire118.757.3%
    Ocean out gassing78.437.9%
    Fresh water out gassing1.00.5%
    Volcanism0.10.0%
    198.295.7%
    Man made
    Fossil fuels7.83.8%
    Land use changes1.10.5%
    8.94.3%
    Total207.1100.0%

  21. This is from IPPC AR5.

    Source                    Amount     Percent
                             (PgC/yr)
    Natural
    Respiration and fire       118.7       57.3%
    Ocean out gassing           78.4       37.9%
    Fresh water out gassing      1.0        0.5%
    Volcanism                    0.1        0.0%
                               -----      ------
                               198.2       95.7%
    Man made
    Fossil fuels                 7.8        3.8%
    Land use changes             1.1        0.5%
                              ------      ------
                                 8.9        4.3%
                              ======      ======
    Total                      207.1      100.0%
    
  22. Okay, I really tried to give Mark Boslough the benefit of the doubt. I went over to RealClimate, I read his comments, I found a copy of the Keigwin paper, I read it as best I could, I reconsidered his comments, and I came up with the same basic reaction, namely head shaking smirky face.

    He writes:

    . . . and in our abstract we pointed out that it [Keigwin’s paleoclimate time series] had been misused by contrarians who had removed some of the data, replotted it, and mislabeled it to falsely claim that it was a global temperature record showing a cooling trend.

    I say:

    But it DOES show a cooling trend from past eras to the present era !

    He further writes:

    (the inconvenient modern temperature data showing a warming trend had been removed).

    I say:

    inconvenient? — “inconsequential” might be the better word. Am I corret in thinking that he is trying to elevate the trend of a tiny segment of time above the trend of a huge segment of time that contains that tiny upward trend as STILL COOLER than in the past ?

    And continuing, he says:

    Taken together, Station S and paleotemperatures suggest there was an acceleration of warming in the 20th century, though this was not an explicit conclusion of the paper. Keigwin concluded that anthropogenic warming may be superposed on a natural warming trend.

    I say:

    Can you BE any more ambivalent in your flacid attempt to counter scepticism? Obviously, … this was not an explicit conclusion of the paper.

    In fact, if a person actually reads the paper, which is here:
    Keigwin, L. (1996). The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea. SCIENCE, 274(5292), 1504-1508.
    https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/keigwin_sargasso.pdf

    Go to page 1507, and notice what the conclusion of that paper REALLY seems to be, namely

    Regardless of the exact cause for the LIA [Little Ice Age], the MWP [Medieval Warm Period], and earlier oscillations, the warming during the 20th century (O.5°C) is not unprecedented. However, it is important to distinguish natural climate change from anthropogenic effects because human influence may be occurring at a time when the climate system is on the warming limb of a natural cycle.

    See the phrase … “not unprecedented”? — this means warming has happened before, Mark.

    See the phrase, “may be occuring”? — this indicates either uncertainty or an unsubstantiated assumption or both, Mark.

    See the phrase, “warming limb of a natural cycle”? — if it is warmING, then this means it is still cooLER than at some other time in the past, Mark.

    Hopefully, I have not made a bigger fool of myself than Mark did. If so, then, oh well, learning can be painful.

  23. Some instances of self-righteous arrogance just stick with you, and this is one of those instances that caused me to focus a bit more on Boslough’s comments at RealClimate:

    We submitted an abstract together about his [Lloyd Keigwin’s] paleotemperature reconstruction of Sargasso Sea surface temperature …

    How impressive, to collaborate with a known pioneer in the field.

    I had updated it with modern SST measurements, and in our abstract we pointed out that it had been misused by contrarians who had removed some of the data, replotted it, and mislabeled it to falsely claim that it was a global temperature record showing a cooling trend.

    Well, it AGREES with other known assessments showing a global cooling trend over this long span of time. People probably use the Robinson et al. article to beef up this fact. Finding supporting evidence, however, is NOT “misrepresenting”. At most, it might be leaving out an underlying assumption that an author assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that a reader already knows.

    I found the Robinson et al. article here:
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    . . . and the version of the graph in question that Robinson et al. used, which was THIS one:

    Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.

    Now, while I still think the placement of that “0” point is sort of confusing (Jesus? or the past point where temperature was at the average of the whole time span and temperature of today?), the graph still seems to capture the significant long-term trend of Keigwin’s original graph. And as Willis pointed out, any “conflating” that was done was done by Boslough, in trying to splice a short-term instrumental series onto a long-term paleoclimate series. As I said earlier, “inconsequential”, as opposed to “inconvenient”, or better still, INCORRECT.

    Keigwin’s Fig. 4B (K4B) shows a 50-year-averaged time series along with four decades of SST measurements from Station S near Bermuda, demonstrating that at the time of publication, the Sargasso Sea was at its warmest in more than 400 years.

    Even if you allowed this INCORRECT splicing procedure, still I ask, “Does the choice of 400years, as opposed to 500 years strike anyone as arbitrary?, to the point of being meaningless?” Why not 500 years? Why not 1000 years or 2500 years?, when temps were as high or markedly higher? Of course, you have to choose a convenient low point in a progression of cyclic lows and highs to create a case of alarmism:

    I think that I have pretty much proven to myself now that this guy is a scam artist, whether he realizes it or not.

  24. Trying entire comment on this thread instead:

    Only if you can guarantee China millions of dollars/pounds/etc. in new orders for windmill and solar parts.

    Or produce a bogus temperature “data” product like BEST does.

  25. TB is often a bit paranoid about Reds under the Bed but in this case he is correct.
    The science is politicised.
    That’s not opinion. That’s proven fact dating back to 1992 when the science started to be significantly funded. There was proportionate no climate science funded before the signing of the UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCC) in 1992.
    So let us look at what was signed. That will tell us if the science is biased or accurate. It is linked here so you can check it yourself.
    UNFCCC Article 4.1 (g) says

    (g) Promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and other research, systematic observation and development of data archives related to the climate system and intended to further the understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various response strategies;

    Note this says the remaining uncertainties. They are not researching that which is certain.
    And what is certain? This is not “remaining” from the opening two paragraphs of the Convention.

    Acknowledging that change in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind, Concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind,

    tony mcleod , you are wrong. This is the link.

  26. Keep trying until WUWT lets me post. This getting like the Guardian
    The science is politicised.
    That’s not opinion. That’s proven fact dating back to 1992 when the science started to be significantly funded. There was proportionate no climate science funded before the signing of the UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCC) in 1992.
    So let us look at what was signed. That will tell us if the science is biased or accurate. It is linked here so you can check it yourself.
    UNFCCC Article 4.1 (g) says

    (g) Promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and other research, systematic observation and development of data archives related to the climate system and intended to further the understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various response strategies;

    Note this says the remaining uncertainties. They are not researching that which is certain.
    And what is certain? This is not “remaining” from the opening two paragraphs of the Convention.

    Acknowledging that change in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind, Concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind,

    tony mcleod , you are wrong. This is the link.

  27. What if this was a double-blind study? Could people tell the difference in the breads? If they didn’t know they were eating cockroaches, maybe they would actually like the bread.

  28. The warmest month of last year was February in the UAH dataset. I’ll start with that as the benchmark and see how the trend evolved from 1998 to then, with each successive month of cooler temps.

    Feb 2016: 0.011 /decade
    Mar 2016: 0.020 /decade
    Apr 2016: 0.028 /decade
    May 2016: 0.034 /decade
    Jun 2016: 0.036 /decade
    Jul 2016: 0.038 /decade
    Aug 2016: 0.041 /decade
    Sep 2016: 0.045 /decade
    Oct 2016: 0.047 /decade
    Nov 2016: 0.050 /decade
    Dec 2016: 0.050 /decade (higher to 4 decimal places than Nov)
    Jan 2017: 0.054 /decade

    Even with la Nina conditions over the last few months, the trend has increased slightly month by month since the peak in Feb last year.

  29. How Imminent is the UAH Pause? (Now Includes Some January Data)

    At Dr. Roy Spencer’s site, starting here:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2017-0-30-deg-c/#comment-236506
    Barry (sorry I do not have his last name) has seven very interesting comments with respect to the requirements for the UAH pause to resume. He has graciously allowed me to use whatever I wished in this blog post. Everything that appears below is from him until you see the comment: “The above is from Barry.”

    Since the el Nino rose last year there have been many predictions here that a la Nina would form shortly afterwards and once again return the trend since 1998 to a flat line or cooling. I decided to check the change in trend from 1998 to each month past the el Nino peak (determined by warmest month last year in UAHv6 data).
    My prediction is that for each month added past the el Nino peak the trend will be ever so slightly warmer, also when including December and January values in UAHv6 TLT data.
    The warmest month of last year was February in the UAH dataset. I’ll start with that as the benchmark and see how the trend evolved from 1998 to then, with each successive month of cooler temps.
    Feb 2016: 0.011 /decade
    Mar 2016: 0.020 /decade
    Apr 2016: 0.028 /decade
    May 2016: 0.034 /decade
    Jun 2016: 0.036 /decade
    Jul 2016: 0.038 /decade
    Aug 2016: 0.041 /decade
    Sep 2016: 0.045 /decade
    Oct 2016: 0.047 /decade
    Nov 2016: 0.050 /decade
    Dec 2016: 0.050 /decade (higher to 4 decimal places than Nov)
    Jan 2017: 0.054 /decade

    Even with la Nina conditions over the last few months, the trend has increased slightly month by month since the peak in Feb last year.
    Testing to see how cool Feb would need to be to make the trend flatline….
    -5C
    You read right – not -0.5, but -5C.
    What would the trend since 1998 be if 2017 annual was the same as January 2017 (0.30)?
    0.063C /decade – warmer than current trend.
    What would the annual anomaly of 2017 need to be to get a flatline trend since 1998?
    -0.16
    How likely is it that 2017 would have an annual anomaly of -0.16C?
    Coolest years post 1998:
    2008: -0.10
    2000: -0.02
    Before 1998 there were 8 years of average annual anomaly less than -0.16. Starting from the most recent year where this was so:
    1993: -0.20
    1992: -0.28
    1989: -0.21
    1986: -0.22
    1985: -0.36
    1984: -0.24
    1982: -0.30
    1989: -0.21
    ENSO conditions relevant to the above were:
    2008 – nina
    2000 – nina
    1993 – neutral
    1992 – nino
    1989 – nina
    1986 – nino
    1985 – nina
    1984 – nina
    1982 – nino
    1989 – nina
    With predictions of a ENSO-neutral or Nino 2017, that would make it unlikely that the annual anomaly would go as low as -0.16C, and thus unlikely that the trend since 1998 would flatten.
    The above is from Barry.

  30. Feel free to use all or some of that if it’s worthy of a post. Might have to put some line breaks in. :-)

    I tested another line of inquiry.

    For 30-year averages, every year where this can be achieved in the UAH 6.0 data, each year added (and one dropped off the beginning to keep the averages 30-year only), the 30-year average has gone up.

    For this to fail to happen due to the 2017, the annual anomaly for that year would have to be < 0.05C.

    Just possible, but very unlikely, I think.

  31. date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:05:05 +0100
    from: David Viner
    subject: Fwd: DEADLINE**Funding for climate campaigners
    to: cru.all@uea.ac.uk

    From: cks@eyfa.org
    To: cks@eyfa.org
    Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:07:09 +0200
    X-Distribution: Moderate
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Subject: DEADLINE**Funding for climate campaigners
    X-Confirm-Reading-To: cks@eyfa.org
    X-pmrqc: 1
    Priority: normal
    Status:

    Funding for climate campaigners.

    A call for proposals.

    from climate-l@eyfa.org

    Deadline: 30th September 1999

    **please distribute to others who may be interested**

    We would like to invite proposals from activists working on climate campaigning.
    Following an activist and NGO meeting in March this year, attended by climate
    activists from Europe, Asia, USA, Australia and Latin America, funding was obtained to
    support two people to work on a project connected to the sixth United Nations Climate
    Convention, otherwise known as the Conference of the Parties (COP6), which will
    happen in Autumn/Winter 2000/2001. The United Nations is currently considering only
    one possible location for the meeting - den Haag, The Netherlands.

    The International working group formed after the activist and NGO meeting are looking
    for two people who would be able to create something innovative and effective with
    this funding. They will be based in a Climate research group in Portugal,
    'Euronatura'. The campaign will be supported by the International working group
    which has experience of United Nations negotiations, direct action, campaigning,
    economics and climate science. Groups supporting this campaign include : eyfa, Aseed,
    Carbusters Magazine, Korean Ecological Youth, Free The Planet USA, EuroNatura, Climate
    Action Network Latin America, Climate Action Network Central and Eastern Europe and
    Oilwatch Europe.

    The thing that joins these people together is the desire to work together to
    radicalise the agenda of the climate negotiations. The current direction of the
    negotiations cannot hope to define targets nor build mechanisms of implementation and
    compliance which will stop the currently dangerous emissions levels of Greenhouse
    Gases.

    Ideally, the collaboration between the two funded volunteers, Euronatura and the
    International working group, will touch on all aspects of climate change and the
    related campaigns of oil, forest, marine and transport. Equally, the collaboration
    will be aware of all strategies to counter the weakness of the United Nations and the
    dominance of certain lobbying groups (notably the oil and nuclear industry). The
    strategies discussed by the International working group revolve around direct action,
    research and negotiation.

    Project ideas which have been discussed are a counter/alternative meeting at the same
    time and place as the UN meeting and/or a symbolic event such as The Climate Train to
    Kyoto. Please bring YOUR ideas to us! What do you think would be the most effective
    way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic
    and political systems? There are plans for a team to work in USA on a parallel
    campaign.

    The project should begin by the end of the 1999.

    Are you a person who has the energy, skills and commitment to coordinate the European
    component of an international campaign?

    (unfortunately, the funding is only for people *under 26 years of age *from Iceland,
    Norway, Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Palestine,
    Syria, Tunisia, Turkey or any EU country)

    Please make your proposal for the campaign which you would like to be part of...

    Deadline 30th September 1999.

    Send to:

    Climate Campaigns,

    Postbox 94115

    1090 GC

    Amsterdam

    Netherlands

    fax: +31 20 692 8757

    email: climate-l@eyfa.org

    eyfa
    postbus 94115
    gc 1090
    amsterdam
    netherlands
    tel. +31 20 6657743
    fax. +31 20 6928757
    email. eyfa@eyfa.org

    #--------------------------------------------
    # Dr. David Viner
    # Climate Impacts LINK Project
    # Climatic Research Unit
    # University of East Anglia
    # Norwich NR4 7TJ
    # UK
    # mailto://d.viner@uea.ac.uk
    # WWW: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link
    # WWW: http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk
    # Tel: +44 (0)1603 592089
    # Fax: +44 (0)1603 507784
    #---------------------------------------------

  32. Extreme weather? … What “extreme weather”?

    It is therefore surprising to discover that by all the various real world data considered here, the weather in the first half of the 20th century was, if anything, more extreme than in the second half. I have not found any data, including in SREX [a special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], that contradicts these trends. Furthermore there are no signs of this trend changing (i.e. lessening and reversing) in recent years.

  33. Warming in the 21st century reduced Colorado River flows by at least 0.5 million acre-feet…

    Bradley Udall of CSU, are you unaware that Colorado River Water helps keeps your campus nice and green?

    Utilities from across the East Slope transfer about 475,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River basin to the East Slope each year. On average, Denver Water customers use about 125,000 acre-feet of West Slope water per year.
     — http://www.denverwater.org/SupplyPlanning/WaterRights/

    More than half of Fort Collins water is diverted from the Colorado River.

    Approximately 40% of Fort Collins water is used for landscaping.

    Bradley Udall, put that water back where it belongs!

  34. testing pre
    More on the lack of correspondence between record high days at Falls Village and Norfolk, CT.

    Falls Village:
    2001-08-03 — 91
    2001-08-04 — 85
    2001-08-05 — 88
    2001-08-06 — 92
    ...
    2002-07-29 — 93
    2002-07-30 — 104
    2002-07-31 — 91
    
    Norfolk:
    2001-08-03 — 87
    2001-08-04 — M
    2001-08-05 — 98
    2001-08-06 — 81
    ...
    2002-07-29 — 75
    2002-07-30 — 87
    2002-07-31 — 85
    

    An argument against interpolation?

  35. Here’s the same investigation with RSSv3 TLT global data. Here is the full record with 12 month averages for visual accompaniment to the following.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12

    Ordinary least squares linear regression, trends in degrees Celsius, the mean trend from January 1998 to:

    Feb 2016: 0.019 /decade
    Mar 2016: 0.028 /decade
    Apr 2016: 0.035 /decade
    May 2016: 0.038 /decade
    Jun 2016: 0.041 /decade
    Jul 2016: 0.043 /decade
    Aug 2016: 0.045 /decade
    Sep 2016: 0.049 /decade
    Oct 2016: 0.049 /decade (higher to 4 decimal places than Sep)
    Nov 2016: 0.050 /decade
    Dec 2016: 0.048 /decade
    Jan 2017: 0.052 /decade
    Feb 2017: 0.053 /decade

    Unlike UAHv6 there is one month (Dec 2016) that lowered the then warming trend slightly. I’ve plotted monthly data and the trend to Nov 2016, and you can see the Dec 2016 anomaly is below the trend line. That’s why December lowered the then trend slightly.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016.90/trend

    Otherwise, every other month after the peak warm month of Feb 2016 increased the trend, even though they were all cooler than February. The trend rose because subsequent months were warmer than the trend itself, except December 2016.

    For the ‘pause’ from 1998 to resume next month, the March anomaly would have to be -3.6C.

    For the pause to resume by December 2017, the annual average anomaly for 2017 would have to be -0.02C.

    The last time an annual temperature anomaly was this cool or cooler in the RSSv3 TLT dataset was 1993 (-0.118C).

    However, January and February 2017 have been 0.41 and 0.44 respectively, so for the pause to resume by December, the average of the next 10 months would have to be -0.12C.

    The last time this happened was in 1992 (-0.19C).

    For a pause to resume by 2020 (Dec 2019), the three year averaged anomaly 2017 to 2019 for RSS would have to be -0.04C.

    The last time a 3 year average was that cool or cooler was 1992 through 1994 (-0.09).

    For the pause to resume by 2020, we’d need to see temps of the next three years similar to those of the early 1990s. Check the graph above to see what that looks like.

  36. How Imminent is the RSS Pause? (Now Includes January and February Data)

    Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Excerpts from Barry and Edited by Just The Facts

    Our previous post was titled “How Imminent is the UAH Pause? (Now Includes Some January Data)” and it can be found here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/19/how-imminent-is-the-uah-pause-now-includes-some-january-data/

    UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) are two major satellite groups that provide monthly climate anomalies. From January 1998 to January 2016, the slope was slightly negative, a period which many have referred to as a “pause”, although some prefer other names. Since a huge anomaly spike in February 2016 due to a very strong El Nino, the so called pause is gone.
    Last month, Barry wrote about several things that must happen for the pause to return for UAH. This month, he has written about what must happen for the pause to return for RSS. However he has also provided additional information with respect to the UAH pause.

    The parts below discuss RSS.

    Here’s the same investigation with RSSv3 TLT global data. Here is the full record with 12 month averages for visual accompaniment to the following.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12
    Ordinary least squares linear regression, trends in degrees Celsius, the mean trend from January 1998 to:
    Feb 2016: 0.019 /decade
    Mar 2016: 0.028 /decade
    Apr 2016: 0.035 /decade
    May 2016: 0.038 /decade
    Jun 2016: 0.041 /decade
    Jul 2016: 0.043 /decade
    Aug 2016: 0.045 /decade
    Sep 2016: 0.049 /decade
    Oct 2016: 0.049 /decade (higher to 4 decimal places than Sep)
    Nov 2016: 0.050 /decade
    Dec 2016: 0.048 /decade
    Jan 2017: 0.052 /decade
    Feb 2017: 0.053 /decade
    Unlike UAHv6 there is one month (Dec 2016) that lowered the then warming trend slightly. I’ve plotted monthly data and the trend to Nov 2016, and you can see the Dec 2016 anomaly is below the trend line. That’s why December lowered the then trend slightly.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016.90/trend
    Otherwise, every other month after the peak warm month of Feb 2016 increased the trend, even though they were all cooler than February. The trend rose because subsequent months were warmer than the trend itself, except December 2016.
    For the ‘pause’ from 1998 to resume next month, the March anomaly would have to be -3.6C.
    For the pause to resume by December 2017, the annual average anomaly for 2017 would have to be -0.02C.
    The last time an annual temperature anomaly was this cool or cooler in the RSSv3 TLT dataset was 1993 (-0.118C).
    However, January and February 2017 have been 0.41 and 0.44 respectively, so for the pause to resume by December, the average of the next 10 months would have to be -0.12C.
    The last time this happened was in 1992 (-0.19C).
    For a pause to resume by 2020 (Dec 2019), the three year averaged anomaly 2017 to 2019 for RSS would have to be -0.04C.
    The last time a 3 year average was that cool or cooler was 1992 through 1994 (-0.09).
    For the pause to resume by 2020, we’d need to see temps of the next three years similar to those of the early 1990s. Check the graph above to see what that looks like.

    The parts below have additional updates for UAH.

    Next month’s anomaly would have to be lower than 0.2C to reduce the trend slightly.
    To get a flat or negative trend since 1998, the March anomaly would have to be -3.8C.
    The decimal point is in the correct place!
    For the 1998 trend to return to flat or negative values by the end of this year, the annual average anomaly for 2017 would have to be -0.16C.
    We have 2 months data already, at around 0.5C warmer than that, so what would the average temperature anomaly for the rest of 2017 have to be to get a flat/negative trend since 1998?
    -0.26C (Mar-Dec)
    The most recent year the annual average anomaly was that cool was in 1985. The annual average then was -0.35C.
    With 2017 predicted to be an el Nino or ENSO neutral year the chances of a flat trend by December are very slim. As I expect some warming with atmospheric CO2 increase, however one may argue the magnitude, I think it is unlikely we will see a year as cold as 1985, barring a volcanic eruption of greater magnitude than the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.
    Consequently, I think it is unlikely the ‘pause’ will return at all if 1998 is used as the start date.
    In comments last month Werner asked how cool the annual anomalies would have to be to get a flat trend if there were a succession of cool years. For the trend since 1998 to go flat by 2020 (December 2019) the annual average temperature anomaly for the three years Jan 2017 to Dec 2019 would have to be:
    0.05C
    When did we last have 3 consecutive years as cool or cooler than that?
    2007 to 2009: 0.05C
    However, January and February 2017, being 0.30 and 0.35C respectively, would raise the three year average to 0.6 if the rest of the months through 2019 were 0.05C.
    So we have to go further back in time to get a cooler 3-year average. Most recent is:
    1994 to 1996: 0.0C
    Those predicting imminent cooling from lower solar ebb or ocean-atmosphere oscillations may expect to see annual temperatures like the early 1990s sometime soon. I am less confident of that. Time will tell.

    ————-
    Written by Barry

  37. Examples of different types of curves.

    Red = Exponential (power), Green = Linear, Blue = Logarithmic

    It seams rather convenient to me that all of the costs follow Exponential (power) functions (like sea level rise), and all of the benefits follow Logarithmic functions (like fertilized plant growth), while the evidence states otherwise. Furthermore, we know that the basic IPPC models themselves are linear functions of CO2 concentrations (ΔT=F{ΔCO2}), when they should be Logarithmic (T=F{log(ΔCO2)}). So we have, overstate the effect of CO2, overstate the damages, and understate the benefits. Yep, sounds correct to me.

    /sarc

  38. Burl Henry on March 8, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    Google my post “Climate Change Deciphered”

    That, Burl Henry, was a bad hint. You’d better have published the link to the blog entry instead. Because near it I found

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/15/scientific-integrity-is-constant-challenge-a-classic-historical-example/

    with in it

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/15/scientific-integrity-is-constant-challenge-a-classic-historical-example/#comment-2320129

    and from there I went to

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/26/the-role-of-sulfur-dioxide-aerosols-in-climate-change/

    and finally to

    Willis Eschenbach
    May 28, 2015 at 8:46 am

    Burl Henry May 27, 2015 at 6:45 am Edit

    Yes, it is always one of cooling. But if you remove Megatonnes of it, then warming naturally occurs, which is the point of my post.

    Yes, Burl. But if your theory is right, if you add Megatonnes of SO2, then cooling naturally occurs, which is the point you are ignoring as fast as you can. As I pointed out above, your theory about .02° per megatonne means the earth should have COOLED from 1850 to 1980, which was the point of my previous comment.

    Unfortunately, you seem determined not to deal with this. Instead, you say:

    Regardless of what happened in the 1850’s to now, currently the lowering of SO2 emissions is causing higher temperatures, and that must be our greatest concern

    Look, Burl, a lot of very smart folks have pointed out exactly where you’ve gone off the road. And so have I. You’ve ignored them, one and all, just as you’ve ignored me.

    Now, you seem to think that holding on to your theory and sticking your fingers in your ears and saying in essence “Na, na, na, I can’t hear any of you, na, na, na” gains you points. I’m here to tell you that is not the case. YOU ARE DESTROYING YOUR REPUTATION ENTIRELY BY NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO OBJECTIONS TO YOUR THEORY.

    Given what I’ve seen so far, you’ve placed yourself firmly on my own personal “SKIP HIS COMMENTS” list, and you’ll stay there until you demonstrate that you can admit when you have made a mistake. You’re free to do that, of course, and if you do I’ll change my mind.

    For now, perhaps you can at least start by trying to explain why the temperatures didn’t obey their SO2 masters from 1850 to 1980 on and warmed a degree or so instead of the 2°C cooling that your theory so confidently hindcasts … and why they changed, explain why in 1980 the temperatures realized the error of their ways and started obeying nobody but SO2.

    I await your explanation, and I fear that the size of your prediction (a 2°C cooling since 1850) will make that more than difficult.

    w.

    Well I do not always agree to Willis’ meaning, but here I do!

  39. @ Bindidon
    March 12, 2017 at 11:40 am

    That’s called dual boot.

    Yes good idea as long as you work with XP, but I lost lots of work due to Win 7 having erased the Linux info off the master boot block at the end of an automatic update…¨,

    Don think you did loose any info, you just could not start the still existing linux from MBR any more, an easy repair with a boot cd or usb to reboot your linux again could have fixed things. Once you start dual booting, this is basic stuff, and creating a regular backup anyway also.

  40. What the US looks like to the rest of the world is only asked by people as insecure as teenager who has no self-esteem and needs to develop a sense of self and a backbone. Sadly, bullying and intimidation are encourage and weakness and submission are the recommended responses. A nation of non-thinkers subject to group-think and shaming.

  41. Recently at WUWT, an article by Leo Goldstein addressed a report by The Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, titled Medical Alert! Climate Change Is Harming Our Healthhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/22/watch-out-for-the-medical-society-consortium-on-climate-and-health/

    The full text of the alert is here: https://medsocietiesforclimatehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/medical_alert.pdf

    Since I view this as a further crusade to validate a false premise, let me address only the first paragraph of the “alert”, as a minimal step in revealing its cascading errors. That paragraph reads as follows (without superscript numerals denoting references):

    Most Americans understand that climate change is real and are concerned about it. But most still see climate change as a faraway threat, in both time and place, and as something that threatens the future of polar bears but not necessarily people. The reality, however, is starkly different: climate change is already causing problems in communities in every region of our nation, and from a doctor’s perspective, it’s harming our health.

    The reference (a Yale study) cited in support of Americans’ understanding of climate change, however, reports that barely more than half of Americans (55%) think that climate change is human-caused, which means that a significant percentage (45%) either do not think this or do not have any opinion on this.

    Now consider a survey from Pew Research Center
    http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

    … which reports:

    But, overall, majorities of Americans appear skeptical of climate scientists. No more than a third of the public gives climate scientists high marks for their understanding of climate change; even fewer say climate scientists understand the best ways to address climate change. And, while Americans trust information from climate scientists more than they trust that from other groups, fewer than half of Americans have “a lot” of trust in information from climate scientists (39%).

    Interestingly, from this same Pew survey, we find:

    Though the [Pew] survey finds that climate scientists are viewed with skepticism by relatively large shares of Americans, scientists overall — and in particular, medical scientists — are viewed as relatively trustworthy by the general public. Asked about a wide range of leaders and institutions, the military, medical scientists, and scientists in general received the most votes of confidence when it comes to acting in the best interests of the public.

    The MedSocCon alert itself mirrors this understanding of the public’s great trust in medical doctors, which indicates to me a suspicious means of engineering greater support for belief in catastrophic human-caused climate change. MedSocCon is serving as a facilitator, “removing the ball”, so to speak, from the court of climate scientists (who have MORE specialized climate knowledge, yet LESS public trust) and putting “the ball” into the court of medical doctors (who have LESS specialized climate knowledge, yet MORE public trust).

    In effect, medical doctors (with greater trust) have been shaped by climate scientists (with less trust) into believing that human-caused climate change is a serious problem, and now these so shaped, trustworthy people are being enlisted by those less-trusted people as activists.

    Let’s have another look at the first paragraph of MedSocCon’s “alert”, … the part that says, climate change is already causing problems in communities in every region of our nation, and from a doctor’s perspective, it’s harming our health. Ten references are cited to support this claim.

    After the first reference, I did not look at the other nine. Here’s a one-page preview of that first reference:

    Views of AAAAI members on climate change and health, Sarfaty, Mona; Kreslake, Jennifer M; Casale, Thomas B; Maibach, Edward W. JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY. IN PRACTICE; Amsterdam4.2 (Mar 2016): 333-335. http://search.proquest.com/openview/0f9d1469276545260f23b9cb318b2976/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2031058

    This particular reference reports the results of a survey of AAAAI members in 48 states and the District of Columbia, in which, I quote, a total of 1184 people responded; the response rate was 22%.

    Here’s a 2015 full-text version that reports the same response rate, and so I assume it is the original report, before the 2016 version appeared:

    https://www.aaaai.org/Aaaai/media/MediaLibrary/PDF%20Documents/Libraries/Climate-Change-Survey.pdf

    I suspect that this is just one instance of discovering how even doctors, in all their trustworthiness, are NOT immune from erroneously mixing knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes with facts. It’s also another instance of using low-response surveys as highly trusted references.

    I won’t drag this out any further, although I could go on. I simply don’t have the time to dissect another non-viable body of proof.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s