JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
Sounds like a busy Saturday, at Doha .
40
What a bunch of absolute b#@%&!t!
40
That would be understating it, me thinks.
20
That was sooo boooring!!!
10
Saving the World can be a thankless task. Not all glamour & excitement, not even for the globetrotters, who were supposed to believe will. be spending their Sunday reading all that turgid UN prose.
00
Well that sure looks like some change management and agile development mentors have gotten stuck into their processes.
I guess that’s what happens when you ask beurocrats to make something more efficient!
Haw haw haw.
10
That is so funny – She spoke for so long, and made no sense whatsoever! What the hell are rhey doing in Doha??
00
‘Comments disabled.’
Of course you have since fixed that, but it was quite amusing. Sort of like ‘talk to the hand.’
[I thought it was funny too. Especially “let it rip” and then no ripping could happen. Then I fixed it] ED
Has everyone seen this yet? http://tribune.com.pk/story/472301/defining-success-at-doha-climate-talks/
I only commented on one detail out of the score of fallacies in that, please, everyone, pile on!
60
I commented:
“It is the height of arrogance for people to assume that all change in nature is caused by man.
What part of “Natural Variation” do they not understand? How do you clearly separate “man-made variation” from “natural variation”? You can’t, because mans ability to influence the raw power of nature is infinitesimal. The sky is not falling, get over it.”
We will now wait to see if the moderators are having a bad day.
140
Truth to tell, virtually all the comments seem to be against the ‘facts’ of the article- including the first commenter, who points out that poorer nations will become ‘evil’ if they are allowed to have the kind of energy access that we enjoy. But I do wonder if something will be done about the comments, should they rapidly begin to pile up with all kinds of Real information, countering the hype.
50
Rekere, I have a quote of the day for you to use –
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29
40
See the numnuts from Galileo, Heartland, GWPF etc: are out with their scientific nonsense yet again
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/
[Ad hom then nothing to support your critique. Is there a point you want to debate? – Mod]
120
Ahh, the assinine ass has been at the patterson’s curse again !!
sending it even more round the twist than usual.
or is it trough lollies this time !!
90
And look, 125 real scientists, any of which would have more knowledge in their little finger that you would have in your tiny equine brain.
You really have been eating way too much mouldy straw.
100
Ad hom ad hom ad hom!
Would you like to detail any/all of their contributions to climate science?
Here’s you chance: “LET IT RIP”
[Sillyfilly your original post was an adhom! How about instead you first state what in that letter to the UN Secretary General they have got wrong and why? – Mod]
117
You first, donkey. And not cut and paste from SkS.
ACGW has NEVER been proven.. prove it ! and corrupted models don’t count!
CO2 forcing of global warming has NEVER been proven.
Its all just a now disproven hypothesis, that should have disappeared years ago but for the trough dwellers and donkeys and galahs that follow the religion.
90
Phillip at 2.1.3.2.1
Still asking others to do your homework, must be so hard for you at school.
50
Oh poor deluded soul: I’ve done my homework, obviously you never have!
How about Morner and lack of sea level rise , maybe Carter and dodgy derivative analyis?
Here’s you chance to channel Bob Tisdale, care to comment?
116
Failed Kindergarten
10
Stupid horse is at it again …
and then goes on to complain about ad-hom attacks …
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the afternoon … it smells like … activism.
101
Sillfilly
Even your mate Ben Santer is scratching head ( as noted by Neville @ 18.1.1 )
http://landshape.org/enm/santer-climate-models-are-exaggerating-warming-we-dont-know-why/
60
To you and neville without the blantant misreporting at Niche modelling:
From Santer et al:
On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling
of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the
troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are
unclear, model biases in lower stratospheric temperature trends are
likely to be reduced by more realistic treatment of stratospheric
ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol forcing.
Our fingerprint results are interpretable in terms of basic
physical mechanisms. The global-scale lower stratospheric cooling
is primarily a direct radiative response to human-caused depletion
of stratospheric ozone (29, 39, 58). Tropospheric warming is
mainly driven by human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse
gases (16, 29). The multidecadal cooling of the stratosphere
and warming of the troposphere, which is evident in all satellite
datasets and simulations of forced climate change examined here,
cannot be explained by solar or volcanic forcing, or by any known
mode of internal variability (3, 11)…
Our ability to identify an externally forced fingerprint in satellite
estimates of atmospheric temperature change is robust to current
uncertainties in both models and observations, and to choices
made in the application of our fingerprint method (SI Appendix).
However, important questions still remain. Although we found
a match between modeled and observed geographical patterns
of temperature change, there are still noticeable differences in
the size of these changes. On average, the CMIP-5 models underestimate
the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and
overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Biases are largest
over the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere.
But seeing Niche is run by one David Stockwell, it’s par for the course!
115
And these honorable souls all contribute to real climate, should that be unreal climate.
Gavin Schmidt
Michael Mann
Caspar Ammann
Rasmus Benestad
Ray Bradley
Stefan Rahmstorf
Eric Steig
David Archer
Ray Pierrehumbert
Thibault de Garidel
Jim Bouldin
Even Wiki’s biased and suspended editer William Connolley has in the past contributed.
Pot / Kettle
60
Don’t insult your betters silly.
52
Your Question ? yes!
Is that not asking others to do you homework, numnut.
70
[snipped – this is not a vehicle for childish name calling. – Mod]
010
not to mention numnut?
03
Quite right Mod.
Isn’t there a Parliament for that ?
20
How enlightening and original, I’m impressed, “not”
80
Silly that you failed to notice that many of the signatories to that letter to the UN chief stooge are
from actual contributors to the UNIPCC Report?
Perhaps they have written this letter because they feel that what they put into the report has been
seriously distorted in the supporting SUMMARY from the UNIPCC?
– have you ever noted how the high chief of the UN
– the public face
– is often a cool dude with lots of suave appeal for the ladies and from a non threatening country to
ease the minds of the men.
The benign face of the world’s peace keeper and planet saver behind which the main business can continue
in peace: the plundering of rich countries by subterfuge and appeal to noble cause.
Politics at it’s finest.
KK 🙂
100
Sounding sooooooooo desparate..
Your religion has fallen apart..
poor little donkey !!!
60
is donkey adult name calling?
11
Ahh, but its from AngryG55. He’s one of the special ones. 🙂
02
Donkey is from Don Quixote, and may be used to suggest futility of cause by assosciation with tilting at windmills.
30
“He’s one of the special ones”
Thank you, kind sir. Glad you have finally realised as such.
You, unfortunately, are not special in any way whatsoever., a meer cat.
And how can I be angry when I has such idiocy as yours and the donkey’s to laugh at!
20
Silly Filly says :-
I think that seems most apposite, when referring to Climate Science.
.
Rather more appropriate than the more impassioned epitaph given it on this monument.
20
Silly Filly:
Here are two sets of real data (no computer models) which I’ve posted elsewhere on this website previously.
One is from GISS/NASA and shows temperature anomalies relative to the period 1951-1980.
The other link is to the Central England Temperature Record going back to 1659.
In 1998 the CO2 level was 364ppm, and it’s now 391. I have a fgure of 7.8GT of CO2 corresponding to 1ppm of CO2, so that means there are now 27 X 7.8 = 211 billion tonnes more of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than in 1998 – yet warming has stalled.
These are the reasons, from real data, why I don’t believe that we’re heading for climate Armageddon, and can see no reason whatsoever to justify the spending of vast sums of money on this supposed threat.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
10
It’s a bad article but I reckon it doesn’t hold a candle to this effort by Ben McNeil, a climate scientist[!] who was torn to bits in a debate with Monckton once.
Then there is this by this prat, Eltham at the ABC, no less.
These people are loons and what the abc has done is give them not only a voice but a legitimacy; it is a massive betrayal of Australian socety that fringe boofheads are able to peddle their complete nonsense at taxpayers’ expense.
130
Streuth. You did a good job restricting your comments, Otter.
How about the “nine-degree Celsius temperature increase in the Mediterranean and the Middle East during July”? I can’t stop myself laughing at people who trot-out predictions of five-degree Celsius increases.
30
And this is my sick-making start to the day….
The propaganda mills are churning full tilt.
[I assume you meant tilt. Without the “l” all I could think of was butter] ED
90
It’s no doubt good experience for kids in advocating a cause.
The brighter kids will realise that’s all it is.
10
Oh, ED, that is interesting.
I thought that FijiDave was referring to the small birds in the UK, back in the days when milk was delivered to the door, that used to peck through the milk bottle tops in order to get at the cream.
40
And more than one species of tit did this. “Paridae: 9 genera, 56 species, 248 taxa. 1 species threatened; none extinct since 1600”. http://ibc.lynxeds.com/family/tits-chickadees-paridae
Not surprised. Clever little critters. Perhaps more than clever? The practice occurred almost instantaneously over distances that could not be explained by birds imitating other birds. No vectoral pattern. Suddenly, all of them knew how to do it. Interesting in the context of this/that species allegedly threatened by AGW/CC.
20
Yes, as I have heard it said, “Tits are not Boobys“.
But the morphic resonance in birds is interesting. I saw a movie* about migratory birds (I forget which ones) and apparently, if one of the earlier birds finds a good source of food, then all of the following birds will change track to the same food source, and they all do it at the same time. Fascinating!
* Nature Channel – I was stuck in an Airport hotel.
20
Ackchooly, I meant what I meant, and the term used is an old Kiwi saying, which means to ‘open the throttle’, or ‘speed up’.
My father-in-law used it to describe his mad dash to safety in the Breakout at Minqar Qaim. He was driving a three ton truck, and, when the word was received to “GO!”, “I put her in second gear and gave her the tit! And kept her there until we got out.” (The New Zealand Division was surrounded by Rommel’s Africa Corp, and a magnificent charge through their lines saved the day. To think what those blokes went through, and they would be well within their rights to question, “WTF for?”)
Not just an isolated use of the term, either.
[Well my sincere apologies. I have a dilemma though, if I change it back the other comments won’t make sense] ED
20
That’s OK, ED. I am at times, guilty of a slight tendency to pedantry. 🙂
[those birds will do that. 🙂 ] ED
10
An interesting statement, that. I guess they realize that adaptation will not require their heavy hand controlling everything and reaching into everyone’s pocket. Otherwise, why would a quite natural process of people adapting to a changing world alarm them?
Sickening isn’t the word.
Is there no good news?
How about this? Doha looks like it’s failing. 🙂
Meanwhile the behind the scenes takeover of the world continues quietly. 🙁
BB
20
Everything about the natural world frightens some people. I really am surprised they don’t spend their lives in bed terrified. “Superstorm”, “Mega Snow storm”, etc. There are now winter weather warnings for 3 inches of snow. Seriously, three inches in states that routinely have snow. More and more people find life frightening, it seems. That could explain drug use, government dependency. We are devolving, evolving….
70
The vast majority of the worlds populations now live in urban centres, and have done so for three or four generations. All they see of nature is what is film-worthy, and that includes avalanches, animals eating other animals, major storms, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, and so on.
They understand urban survival very well, and how not to get killed on the subway, but they won’t go for a daytime walk through the forest, because … [insert phobia here].
70
“The vast majority of the worlds populations now live in urban centres, and have done so for three or four generations.”
Well actually urban dwellers only topped 50% in 2007: http://www.gizmag.com/go/7613/
14
3 thumbs down for countering rhetoric with fact. tough audience.
41
What he meant, Matt, was “the vast majority of people I know”.
12
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_per_liv_in_urb_are-people-percentage-living-urban-areas
http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/HumanPopulation/Urbanization.aspx
Statistics are what you want them to be. If you count towns of say 100 as urban, you get one answer. If your count towns of 10,000 or above, you get a different answer. I suppose the best idea is to decide what the terms mean and after a month or so of fighting, we might come to a tentative definition. You can prove anything you want with the right statistics.
00
I know this is off the wall but I would go for a walk in the forest any day if there was enough forest near enough to get to without a long drive.
The problem is to find the forest when you’re a city dweller, not all the things to fear. 🙂
00
I can see that. I am also guessing in places other than the open west, people don’t drive to their cabins 120 away though it’s done here all the time. Driving miles to forests is routine. I have no idea what it’s like on say, the east coast. I’ve been to large cities but I don’t like them. I prefer miles between myself and my nearest neighbor. It’s all in what you get used to and what you are comfortable with. I think it would be good if we could get all people to be able to experience both cities and forests–it makes for a better educated public. 🙂
00
Sheri,
What’s happening is that people are now being subtly taught to be afraid by the supposed experts. Blame that directly on mass communication, TV and internet. Without that people just learned to cope. Now they worry endlessly.
00
I agree. Fear and helplessness are taught.
00
Do we have yet another instance where our AGW promoter friends must rely on what appears to be an orchestrated event in order to push their agenda?
“Bizarre ‘Fox Lies’ video: Alleged “Climate-Denying O’Reilly Fan” Now Believes Global Warming is Real”
http://junkscience.com/2012/11/30/bizarre-fox-lies-video-alleged-climate-denying-oreilly-fan-now-believes-global-warming-is-real/
20
Bizarre? Sure! Bizarre that O’Reilly is a skeptic. He knows history but I’ll bet he couldn’t tell you the chemical formula for carbon dioxide if his life depended on it. O’Reilly is fighting a different battle and it has nothing to do with science.
40
The line that got my attention was in the Guardian:-
“No world leader at the UN climate change summit”
Unfortunately , being the Guardian they couldn’t grasp the significance of that statement and leave it at that…
90
Not a good read for Sunday – or any other day either
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/just-a-little-more-fair/
30
NYT having a bet each way or partially waking up to reality?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/science/studying-cities-to-find-global-warmings-benefits.html?ref=science&_r=0
20
Slow news day:
Due to lack of interest, today has been cancelled.
50
Here is something to read from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578149292503121124.html
An interview with Harvey Mansfield By SOHRAB AHMARI
There is more worthwhile analysis that follows.
50
26 Nov: CBS: State approves Cape Wind deal with NStar
NStar’s agreement to buy 27.5 percent of the wind farm’s power is similar to National Grid’s agreement with Cape Wind to buy half its power, which the Department of Public Utilities approved in 2010. The $2.6 billion Cape Wind project still is seeking financing, and company officials said having two large power purchase deals in hand will give them a boost.
“Taken together, these two (contracts) provide Cape Wind with the critical mass to continue securing project financing,” said Theodore Roosevelt IV, Cape Wind’s financial adviser.
The 130-turbine project in Nantucket Sound, proposed in 2001, is aiming to be the country’s first offshore wind farm, and hopes to produce power by late 2015. It’s backed by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, but staunchly opposed by critics who have filed pending lawsuits and argue its power is too costly.
***For instance, under its 15-year contract, NStar has agreed to buy Cape Wind’s power for more than double what conventional energy is projected to cost during the same period.
“It’s disappointing the state is willing to burden Massachusetts households and businesses with billions of dollars in extra utility costs for the sake of promoting an expensive and poorly sited project,” said Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the project’s chief opponent…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57554580/state-approves-cape-wind-deal-with-nstar/
***public outrage will surely kick in eventually.
20
Thank you, JoNova, for being the eyes and ears of society in troubled times.
Many sense danger and uncertainty. None of us have it all figured out yet:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-11-30/ron-paul-why-i-didnt-run-as-an-independent/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/just-a-little-more-fair/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1807
31
Here is an open letter to the UN Secretary-General on climate misinformation [Financial Post]:
http://tinyurl.com/bv8n2tl
– Oliver K. Manuel
41
29 Nov: New Hampshire Union-Leader: DAN SEUFERT: NH wind-farm builder Iberdola facing lawsuit in N.Y. over wind noise
ALEXANDRIA – As opponents of Iberdrola Renewables’ proposed wind-farm project in three Newfound-area towns were planning strategies last month, a group of 60 residents in three upstate New York towns filed suit against Iberdrola, claiming the noise from the wind farm there is making them ill and forcing them to leave their homes…
Plaintiffs said the 476-foot turbines are bigger and noisier than developers promised residents.
As a result, they say, residents near the wind farm are dealing with loud noise each day…
Bernadette Baylor and Richard Baylor Jr., two of the plaintiffs, said Wednesday that the project has prevented them from selling their house.
Because of the turbines’ noise, they abandoned their home and were forced to file for bankruptcy, Bernadette Baylor said.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek punitive damages. “(Iberdrola officials) acted willfully, recklessly, were grossly negligent, and/or acted with a conscious disregard,” the plaintiffs stated in court documents…
The company has leased the 600 acres it needs for the project from landowners, but the state’s permitting process has not started yet and may take a year to complete.
The company does not need permits from the towns…
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20121130/NEWS05/121129100
20
UPDATE 1: EU carbon prices hit record low on vote delay
LONDON, Nov 30 (Reuters Point Carbon) – European emissions allowances hit an all-time low of 5.89 euros in early trade on Friday, falling more than 10 percent on a European Commission announcement that EU member states will not be asked to vote on a proposal to prop up carbon prices at a meeting of officials next month…
One trader said that once the market opened there was a flurry of selling, pushing prices to the fresh low in a matter of minutes…
Traders said the expectation of a delay had caused ‘panic’ in the market largely because it is now unclear whether the Commission has enough Member State support to push the plan through.
“It’s looking like we might not even end up with the 900 million. If there isn’t the support could it get watered down to 500 million, which wouldn’t do anything to help prices?” the trader said.
Dec-12 prices recovered to close at 6.19 euros on Friday but remained down 12 percent week-on-week…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2080305
20
‘Hot air`could let nations dodge CO2 cuts until 2026: study
DOHA, Nov 30 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Countries that have pledged new emission reduction goals under the Kyoto Protocol will on average not be forced to cut their CO2 output for 15 years unless unused carbon rights are cancelled or targets are deepened, according to a study published on Friday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2080665?&ref=searchlist
10
The EPA shows that heatwaves were worse in the 1930s.
Klutzes.
30
Ban Ki-Moon get SLAPPED by 129 experts.
Let me bet the coverage of this by the MSM will be VERY sparse (if reported at all).
I will be sending this to Michelle Rowland (Labor Greenway – 2nd most marginal electorate in Australia) and reminding her (again) of the scam she is supporting and how I will be working to assist her removal at the next election (with whoever is preselected by the coalition).
I believe one person who is interested in standing for pre selection is Angry Anderson – he would be a refreshing change – maybe he’d even return phone calls and answer emails!!
Cheers,
120
You should check that the person who is opposing her is not global warming nutter. There are some who are from the other side of politics who are still believing that AGW/CC is real.
10
From that letter:
Why not since 1995? Any problems using 1995 as the start date? If you want to identify a “skeptic”, just look for the “no warming since…” phrase. See that, and fake skepticism is assured.
Look, its pretty obvious. The only leg you guys have to stand on is disputing climate sensitivity. Jumping on any pause in warming is as silly as a dog chasing its tail. Questioning the temperature record a la Mr Watts is dumb. Its been done to death, and the warming is obvious.
Its warming. Sea levels are rising. It doesn’t look like natural variation. We aren’t still coming out of the little ice age.
There could be a reason for this. But no, you guys don’t think so, except for good old natural variation.
25
Sorry, John, AGW claims are without scientific merit. A more reasonable explanation for the worldwide decline of democracy was given by this quote:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
From Courage to Liberty
From Liberty to Abundance
From Abundance to Selfishness
From Selfishness to Complacency
From Complacency to Apathy
From Apathy to Dependency
From Dependency back into Bondage”
http://actionamerica.org/fun/tytler.shtml
The world has been in bondage for sixty-seven years, since the United Nations was established on 24 Oct 1945. The world is now re-awakening to spiritual faith.
The force field from the Sun’s pulsar core acts as a giant internet web, controlling a volume of space that exceeds the volume of ten billion, billion (10^19) Earths !
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1883
Would-be world tyrants are in fact powerless.
20
Make sure the opposing candidate to the ALP member can actually spell the names of the suburbs in their electorate, actually know the boundaries of the electorate and can actually spell. My Liberal candidate does not seem to fulfill any of those criterion.
00
Something else that the MSM left out is one of the most important environmental effects that all these Wind Towers actually have, just in the their manufacture. That is the rare earth mineral mining and processing that is required for the nacelles and is not required for any other use.
There is already an environmental disaster occurring, but since it is in China, that must be OK.
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning … it smells like environmentalism.
100
Just to remind everyone what the temp was like for the holocene and back into the glacial.
I put this on Jennifer’s site last night.
These series of graphs come from GISP2 Greenland ice core data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
This is probably the clearest way to look at our modern warming and check against warming and cooling periods over the Holocene and further back into the last glacial.
Some graphs are shown from Vostok at antarctica for comparison as well. Just proves what a lot of nonsense we’ve been told over the past 30 years.
Our slight warming over the last 100 years of 0.7c is not unusual or unprecedented in any way.
Especially when our slight warming comes at the end of the LIA, one of the coldest periods of the holocene.
70
Ice core temperature graphs can be found at http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm and have been there since 2005.
What’s rarely mentioned, except by a few researchers in the USA and Europe, is that the isotope O18, which is the basis for the derivation of temperature from ice cores, might be more a factor of precipitation than temperature.
50
John it seems even Ben Santer now believes the models are exaggerating warming.
Of course in only recent times he said he’d like to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels.
Looks like Pat may have the last laugh.
http://landshape.org/enm/santer-climate-models-are-exaggerating-warming-we-dont-know-why/
10
Hey John is this yours:
“COOL YEAR PREDICTED
It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009:
Our ENSO – temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath by John McLean”
Bit different to “climate reality”:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1956/mean:13
Could you explain?
311
Hey Silly…
Care to comment on any of the last 100,000 years?
Not just 1956!!!
Are you a horse or a mann ??
20
Come on sillyfilly, you know that we aren’t allowed to hold “skeptics to their predictions!
13
On the contrary John; you are indeed entitled and correct in saying that his prediction was wrong.
We agree with you; see how easy it is! And we don’t even have consensus on our side.
Now why don’t you equally admit that Hansen’s formula and all the models have got it woefully wrong?
CAGW is a dud hypothesis found wanting by evidence – empirical evidence even with “rubbery” T data.
30
If this doesn’t show the type of extremists we’re dealing with then I don’t know what does.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GL_CMIP5_rcp45_tas_38.jpg This is a graph from Christy’s last appearance before congress in USA.
38 models are shown and the thick black line is the mean of all models. But look at the UAH satellite data and the RSS satellite data for the last 30+ years well below the mean line .
Also some of the other main data sets are below the mean as well. Yet we are told repeatedly that everything is getting worse and AR 5 will scare the pants off us. What a pack of liars and con artists these corrupt swines are, but I guess some will still believe their lies and line up willingly to buy their snake oil.
70
That’s great Neville.
I was going to say how they could have dumped all the others and just used INMCM4 since it seemed to match the satellite record so well…
but then I found the TABLE OF ERRATA for CMIP5 climate models.
INMCM4 used exploits such as…
* Cloudiness values often exceed 100%
* Relative humidity includes unphysical values such as negative numbers.
Hmmm!
I’d love to know what value of ‘climate sensitivity to CO2’ they are using. If they are using the IPCC consensus value of 2.1 or even some compromise value 1.5, and the ONLY WAY to get the temperatures to match reality was… to cut greenhouse warming from the MAIN greenhouse gas (water vapour) by making humidity NEGATIVE across most of the ocean, and also by shielding incoming radiation with more cloud than is actually possible….
…well those clever Ruskies just might have done us a favour!
Is CO2 actually a weak greenhouse gas, or is the atmosphere like a TARDIS that can hold more clouds on the inside than the outside?
I believe I need some climate research funding to answer this question!
90
That would be the satellite temps that were going down until they realised they’d made a mistake? And you are sure they’ve got it right now?
01
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/lowe-voice-rises-20121201-2anl6.html#ixzz2DpaxVfY7
20
It appears that DOHA is not going so well but what about the internet?
http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/aw-shucks-why-not-let-the-un-control-the-internet/
10
P Gosselin reports: Permafrost Far More Stable Than Claimed…German Expert Calls Danger Of It Thawing Out “Utter Imbicility”!
I blame the lack of widespread, intrinsic understanding on the nature of latent heat on frost-free refrigerators. It all started going downhill when ice-boxes were replaced by mechanical refrigeration. 😉
130
Monckton on 16 years without warming and all those corrupt,clueless multi billion $ gabfests.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#more-75152
41
Check the temperature record, multidecadal periods without warming (more likely cooling), unfortunately that doesn’t explain that current decadal temps are at the hottest in millenia. The anthropogenic impact to the fore!
212
We are reaching a peak like the MWP, the RWP and the Minoan Warm period, ALL of which were almost certainly warmer than now.
The whole long term trend is downwards, and the next cool peiod, whenever that might be, will be cooler again, and even more deadly than the Dark Ages.
Humans would have had a good ability to cope, but many coutries have shut down the one thing that has lead to societies advancement over the last couple of hundred years, coal power, cheap energy.
And all because of stupidity by ignorant attribution clowns with basic computer skills, but near zero knowledge about climate. (eg Mann)
If the temperature does dip to another minimumum in the near future, those who have destroyed the cheap energy structure are the ones who should be held responsible for the damage and deaths that will occur around the world, especially in 3rd world countries that have held back from developing cheap energy systems.
And people who have pushed and supported the CO2 fraud should bow their heads in SHAME.
YES, I mean YOU ! Donkey
72
So, we can take it from this and the abuse further up-thread that AngryG55’s official term of the day is Donkey? What an uplifting conversationalist. 🙂
14
I match the description to what is being said by the person.
Donkey is as donkey says.
Hope that works for you, fur-ball. 🙂
21
McShane and Wyner, who I bet you don’t understand filly, conclude that there is only an 80% chance that the recent decade was the warmest of the last 1000 years, and 1998 is most likely not the warmest year [64% against] and the last 30 year period, is also unlikely to have been the warmest [62% against].
61
As quoted:
80% chance, that’s for the confirmation cohenite, with odds of 4 to 1 on, that makes my statement a clear favourite!
28
As I say silly, you don’t understand McShane and Wyner; they got that result using Mann’s flawed data but changed Mann’s flawed algorithm which inverted the scale and changed the meaning of the data; that is, the proxies for warm were changed or misinterpreted by Mann to be cold and vice-versa for the cold proxies. So instead of the low x-ray density corresponding to warm Mann now shows that low density shows cold and so on. The data was flawed because it was extremely concentrated and not representitive.
M&W used a variety of methods to test Mann’s process using the same data; they found there is a greater chance that hotter days were in the past and a climate cycle of 30 years was also in the past.
Are you really that desperate to believe this AGW garbage?
31
What’s wrong dear moddy have I upset you! Consistency?
[We are volunteers – we can’t pick up everything but you should know the rules by now. – Mod]
010
filly I think we’re just going to have to accept that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
14
I know there has already been some mention of the letter published on Nov 30th in the Financial Post here: Letter as published at: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/
I decided to write to all Federal Parliamentarians with a short simple message to consider on their break and thought that letter was a perfect thing to attach. Here’s what I wrote to all members and senators:
“I have made the effort to try to write to every member of parliament on the vital matter as you leave for your Christmas break.
We are continually being told in the media and by the United Nations and our Government that the Climate Science is settled and human green house gas emissions are causing dangerous climate change. Anyone who does not believe that is either a crook, crank or simply ignoring the evidence according to those trying to drown out any reasonable critique. In reality it is the UN and our Government and the alarmist climate scientists and the compliant media pushed by activist environmentalists who are refusing to acknowledge the scientific evidence. This letter to the UN Secretary General co-signed by 129 eminently qualified people spells out some of the evidence which is being blatantly ignored; and which proves the theory that human greenhouse gases cause dangerous climate change is wrong and clearly shows the science is not settled.
It is not too late for all parties to reconsider a more scientific, level headed approach to protecting the population from normal, severe weather events, and natural climate variability, while continuing to study the forces which shape our planet’s climate which are clearly poorly understood. We have wasted too much money already on useless projects and token efforts while damaging our economy and job prospects, particularly for young and regional Australians. We need politicians with guts and intelligence who are prepared to explain policy and move away from a populist short term approach to Government which will see us follow Europe and the US into economic and social disaster.
Please read the letter to H E Ban Ki-Moon and ignore it at Australia’s future peril.”
PS: I used the email list which Jo Nova has previously published (rather than tediously copy and paste each from the list at the House of Reps and Senate web site, but I’m getting a few failure notices. Does anyone have access to an up-to-date email list of all our Federal MP’s and Senators, I’m sure others would like to send them a Christmas message too.
20
I’m kinda glad the parliamentary season is over for the year.
The zoo was in uproar and all those animals needed to go back to their own cages and cool off for a while. 😉
The hawks and the doves (or is that the Rabbits and the Daleks??) were all making buffoons of themselves.
The hawks used their keen eyesight to spot a dead body in the dove’s closet from 1000 paces, and the doves were uncharacteristically warlike in their response.
I can’t see the use in dredging up a smelly carcass from 1997 when there is ample evidence today that the dove is useless and is a different carnivore in a dove suit.
Similarly, one must enquire as to whether the hawk needs glasses when its famous eyesight can’t see the bleedin’ obvious about the sky and its lack of fearsome dragons.
I’ve twisted that analogy enough, time to swap!
Yes the Daleks had best be dispatched back to Skaro as quick as possible before they take over any more of this planet and implant any more unwitting school-age humans with mind control programs (or 12 million dollar carbon policy propaganda campaigns).
As for the Rabbit, scampering away from his encircled Brandis brethren, hopping away from his “climate change is crap” routine, burrowing underground in the hopes the teammates left outside the burrow won’t be Dalek fritters by the morning, there is still yet a greater foe that could see Rabbit Pie on the Canberra cafeteria menu.
Old Farmer Goldman is licking his lip$ and his faceless masters respect neither brands nor borders.
Run Rabbit, run rabbit, run run run!
Don’t give Farmer Goldman any P.M. fun!
He’ll survive more days
Without a U.N. pay raise,
So run Rabbit, run rabbit, run run run!
10
Nevill there has been no cooling trend versus variation read up the difference ..
400,000 years of recorded ice core data show warming at the same rates NASA , CSIRO , BOM , MET , Hadcrut and many of the agencies say … the same cores show the CO2 level rise in correlation with it
00
Kracknell you need to read here: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ You might also be interested in looking at this: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01761761470e970c-pi
Jo Nova shows that the alleged correlation where temperature rise follows a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels does not exist as you appear to claim. This is also shown very well at ‘Climate SWAG’ where the author looking at the Vostok ice core data writes:
“I am particularly fond of the data from about 130,000 years ago. In one 10,000 year period shortly after the peak temperature dropped 6 degrees C while carbon dioxide managed to stay relatively steady at about 270 ppm. Steady carbon dioxide, falling temperatures…and it went on for 10,000 years.
I’m also a fan of 345,000 years ago when carbon dioxide increased 15% in 10,000 years and temperature actually went down.”
The Greenland Ice Core data is relatively uncontroversial among scientists and is accepted as a reasonable proxy of at least the direction of temperatures in the northern hemisphere for the last 10,000 years. The graph is shown below and demonstrates clearly and fairly dramatically that atmospheric CO2 can hardly be the major driver of temperature, given previously high temperatures at lower levels. The graph also clearly shows that current temperatures are not unusual at all as is constantly claimed in the media.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cYxW6D5ebrs/TasMDH04yLI/AAAAAAAAAFU/abWuVnAhx7k/s1600/greenlandice_fig5.png
20
Sorry if you didn’t read it properly i said 400,000 years ice core data that is in direct correlation with co2 levels this is actual fact not like that chart which seems done by a 3rd grader … NASA , NOAA , NAS , MET and many others use this factual data … You might want brush up on REAL science
http://youtu.be/O4BJDwI8zSk
01
And yet you link to a video done by a kindergarten student… go figure !!!
00
Kracknell, you obviously didn’t look at the links or read any of the references lest you see that temperature and CO2 DO NOT have a very good correlation. It is ironic that you post a Youtube video of an ostrich – you probably also incorrectly believe that ostriches bury their heads in the sand!
Firstly, if high CO2 levels and high temperatures were a threat to humans, how do you explain the fact that mammals evolved and humans thrived during periods which were largely warmer than they are today and largely had higher CO2 levels than we have today? Humans have suffered primarily when global temperatures have dropped during ice ages, and during the more recent Little Ice Age where for instance about one third of Europe’s population died due to starvation and disease because of crop failure and stock deaths and increased infections. So why anyone would complain about the slight warming of around 0.8C over the last 140 years I really don’t understand.
I have already provided evidence in previous links that the claimed correlation and causation between CO2 and temperature is bunkum, but you should have a look at CLIMATE CHANGE DURING GEOLOGICAL AND RECENT TIMES any thing new or déjà vu? Causes, Speculations and IPCC Postulates Prof. Peter A. Ziegler, Dr. h.c. March 2011, updated December available to read or download free here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Global.Warming_Ziegler.pdf
On page 3 is an excellent graph showing the accepted scientific proxies for global temperature and CO2 for the last 4.6 billion years and you will see that for much of that time there is in fact a negative correlation.
On page 5 of the same document a graph shows science’s best guess at how temperature has varied over the past 542 million years. Notice the wide variation in temperature over time, sometimes colder than the average 14°C of today but much of the time considerably warmer. Note also the blue rectangles along the bottom of the plot representing periods of ice house conditions. Even though there have been several extensive ice ages during the Phanerozoic, for the majority of the past half billion years there have been no permanent ice caps in either hemisphere. In that sense, the total melting of the Greenland and Antarctic glacial ice sheets would mark a return to historically normal conditions for our planet – not a disastrous man made tipping point to be avoided at all costs!
That document confirms:
“During the last 545 Million years the Earth‘s climate shifted repeatedly between ice-house and green-house conditions. We live in an interglacial period of the Neogene ice-house. Temperatures changed in geological times in response to natural processes. These processes are still active at present and influence our climate.”
Page 6 graphs CO2 levels about which is written:
“Reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through time are based on the analysis of multiple proxies, as summarized by Berner & Kothalva (2002). Estimates are consistent across methods but the amplitude of CO2 concentration changes varies between methods.
During Phanerozoic times atmospheric CO2 concentrations varied widely. At times they were more than 20 times higher than at present. Our atmosphere is CO2 starved.“
The graph on page 7 compares CO2 and temperature proxies over the last 4.6 billion years and concludes:
“Taking proxy-derived data and their inherent uncertainties at face-value, there is a poor correlation between average atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature fluctuations during Phanerozoictimes.
Amongst different factors influencing the Earth’s climate(e.g. solar activity, orbital changes,continent distribution),CO2 does not appear to be a dominant forcing. Veizeretal.,2000;Shaviv & Veizer, 2003 Royer, 2006;Soon,2007).”
00
Temp / CO2 in last 400,000 years have not been higher then todays show me where that is the case .. and you use Friends of Science who were charged with illegally using a Calgary Uni logo in their films to make themselves look legit when in fact they are a fossil fuel funded fraud organisation that were purposely put up by energy and oil based vested interests to peddle denial on this …
I said REAL science not the rubbish stuff so show me a actual legit scientific organisation that says it was hotter then we are now anytime in last 400,000 years very easy
00
Has anyone done any calculations on the CO2 released to the atmosphere for this Doha conference?
– travel, by aircraft for many many unneccesary people.
– energy, oil fired I believed, for massive amounts of air conditioning, computers and local transport
– transport of people, foodstuffs etc to venues,
– transport for security people
these are just a few of the CO2 releasing actions involved, bound to be many more.
The point is that these people DO NOT CARE.. so long as they get their junket !!!
Al Gore, and his many, many hypocritical fanatics !!!
80
mods, can you fix that if possible, please. !! does not look good ;-(10
.
AndyG55
About 17,000 people from 194 countries will attend the meeting at the Qatar National Convention Centre, making it Doha’s largest ever conference.
Qatah is the world leader in CO2 emmissions – these guys by staying at hotels, ordering imported food, flying in & out, travel, communications, luggage (very large), electronic equipment, socialising, functions, security, TV coverage, and a lot of building prior to the event – it is estimated at over 10 tonnes per head for the 15 nights.
Equals 170,000 tonnes of CO2 emmited by the Greenies. What a waste. No wonder they want to shut down the internet. Thats the equivalent per capita per anunum – a world record of
Each DOHA Greenie emmites a potential of 243 tonnes CO2 per annum.
Absolute disgrace.
10
“pis” = “point is”.. major typo, tasty hamburger in hand 🙂10
More people die getting coal out of the ground.
Some 1146 people have died in 650 mining accidents in China this year, according to government figures released in October.
06
.
There were 26,156 excess winter deaths during 2009-10 in the UK with figures for 2010-11 to be published next month. The fact that these ‘excess’ deaths occur in winter makes it clear that they are due directly to cold.
Deaths due to Rising Energy Bills.
50
That’s preciely why we should be GREATLY INCREASING our coal production, so the Chinese don’t have to use their rather lower quality coal, mined by antiquated mining practices.
20
A Puzzle for ALL to consider
It still appears that there are a number of people commenting above who believe that carbon dioxide has an effect on climate.
Perhaps you don’t fully understand how diffusion in a gas has a propensity to ensure homogeneous entropy. When entropy is homogeneous throughout, say, the troposphere we would observe a perfectly linear temperature gradient based on the dry adiabatic lapse rate which is well known in physics to be a function of gravity.
Of course weather conditions and atmospheric composition cause temporary irregularities, but never-the-less, this process ensures a temperature gradient for the simple reason that the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy in any small region is constant for all such regions in the troposphere.
This is the only plausible explanation for the high temperature of the Venus surface, because only about 2.1 W/m^2 of incident Solar radiation gets through the dense Venus atmosphere to its surface. So there is no significant amount of such Solar radiation coming back out of the surface, unlike on Earth.
Hence, the Venus atmosphere is heated by absorbed incident Solar radiation. But this hot atmosphere could not send heat by radiation and cause an even hotter surface to get hotter still. So what does cause that surface to be about 500 degrees hotter than the planet’s mean radiating temperature?
I say that the naturally forming temperature gradient based on a propensity for there to be uniform entropy from top to bottom necessitates the high temperature at the base of the atmosphere. That region then heats the surface by both conduction and radiation, though the surface may well remain perhaps a degree or two less hot.
Now, if anyone thinks they have an alternative suggestion as to how it all happens, I would be very grateful to discuss same, and consider it for publication, with due acknowledgement, in a paper I have written which is currently being reviewed, but still open to modification. Any takers?
41
I tend to think it all happens in line with how mainstream physicists think it happens.
24
“I tend to let other peoole do my thinking for me”.
There I fixed it for you MattB 😉
72
Sonny lets “Doug Cotton” do his thinking for him, instead of experts in the field.
03
And by experts you mean anyone who peddles your point of view, yes?
20
Uh oh! James, that will surely provoke some kind of Agenda 21 the UN are using mind control rays on us comment from Sonny. Just wait…..
21
There is absolutely no doubt that compressing a gas increases the temperature of the gas.
There is absolutely no doubt that releasing a gas under pressure causes a local cooling effect.
How compression of gases is not an integral component of climate science amazes me – I could be mistaken but I never see it mentioned as having any relevance and people that have proposed atmospheric mass and pressure as a possible source of heat on Venus for example are called deniers by climate scientists.
Compression of an atmosphere by gravity results in temperatures that are not explainable by consideration of “blackbody” physics alone.
Further, all planets in our solar system that have a substantial atmosphere have temperatures above the theoretical “blackbody” maximum and most do not have “greenhouse gases” in the atmospheres of primarily hydrogen and helium.
Check out NASA’s planetary fact sheets if you don’t believe me – http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html
Of course there is the absolute proof of what massive compression of gases causes – it rises every morning.
30
Even though you have no idea what mainstream physicists think.
You sound like a certain ALP member. Don’t know what was said, but agree anyway.. DOH !!!
20
My prime minster made a statement on this while overseas, yet to read my prime ministers statement. However I fully agree with her statement!
seems to ring some bells for me.
10
Actually Bob Bill Shorten first contradicted what his PM said and when told of this contradiction he then flipped flopped by saying he agreed with the PM even though he had no idea what the PM said.
This from the democratic labor party!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
All that very well may be, but Venus doesn’t have a consensus.
30
or decent pizza either.
10
Venus has an 80km thick atmosphere of mainly CO2,and Nitrogen with thick clouds of sulphur dioxide. Many greenhouse gas enthusiasts believe that while this thick reflective blanket blocks 80% of the suns energy from entering the atmosphere they imagine the 20% that does enter has such huge positive feedback mechanisms that is why the surface temperatures are so high. They suffer the same theoretical problems that our earth alarmists do. Sure some of the reflected energy from Venus’ surface is reflected back to the surface, but it is also reflected sideways and out and escapes back into space.
What they forget is that like the Earth, Venus has a core which is at a temperature around 7,000C. The inner core of Iron and nickel is solid and under immense pressure while the outer core of iron, and nickel is liquid. The heat from this conducts to the surface through the rocky mantle of Venus, and also gets carried through to the surface from continuous volcanic eruptions which melt the surface at the point of eruption.
Volcanism on Venus is particularly violent because it does not have tectonic plates like Earth.
Because of the thick atmospheric blanket, this heat conducted to the surface and through volcanic activity is not easily released into space.
Given the conditions on Venus the surface temperature is unremarkable and to be expected and has no parallels with Earth which has tectonic plates, rotates very much faster providing gravity, an atmosphere, (therefore water and more trace gases) and a strong magnetic field (through a rotating liquid outer core around a solid inner core).
10
In 1979 I purchased a series by Marshall Cavendish named “How It Works”.
It covered just about every process that man had used from way back to the present day.There was biographies of most of the great scientists and inventers and some of the not so great.The interesting thing was that the names Arrhenius and Callendar were nowhere to be found and the terms greenhouse gas,greenhouse effect and climate change were not mentioned.
There was a 2 page section on meteorology but the words greenhouse or climate change were nowhere to be found.
As for a section on climatology it was nowhere to be found.
So in just on 33 years we have a new science and it is settled nothing more to learn amazing.
80
It’s only a made up science, for those that cann’t hack the real sciences.
10
In my “puzzle” above, it may make it easier to understand if, instead of referring to entropy, you replace that with “the sum of molecular kinetic energy and potential energy.” Whenever a molecular is in “free flight” between collisions, there can be an interchange of PE and KE, but the total stays the same. Likewise, when two molecules collide, the total PE+KE for the two of them is unchanged, assuming no radiation occurs. Hence, as molecules move around and collide, the diffusion process leads to the PE+KE total eventually being about the same in any small region at any altitude. But those with lower PE at the base of the atmosphere have more KE, and thus temperature measurements are higher.
10
Well is the Antartic melting.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/definitive-study-highlights-polar-ice-melt/story-e6frf7k6-1226527163226
Or not
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20121112.html
Funny I dont remember the later making it to the breakin news. 🙂
11
Antarctic Sea Ice and Antarctic Ice Mass are not the same beast. Newb.
12
I watch the to and fro here at virtually every Thread, and it always puzzles me.
What I want someone from the side who supports this Climate Change/Global Warming belief to tell me is why you (and they) so blindly follow it without asking one simple question.
Have you ever wondered why, when you say so many gazillion experts tell you it is a fact, and they know the exact cause, just why they are not actually doing anything about it, and please, don’t tell me they are doing something, because all they are doing is taking the tiniest little nibbles around the edges.
They know the problem, so they tell us, and in fact, they never stop telling us, and not only that, every time they open their mouths, it’s actually getting worse.
If the problem is as dire as they tell us, and they know the exact cause, then just stop those CO2 emissions. Finish them off completely. Stop them dead, and start the recovery from there.
They actually know this, or so they tell us.
Haven’t any of those of you who do support this actually wondered why they aren’t doing this.
Can one of you, any one of you ….. PLEASE ….. explain to me why you support this so blindly, when it is just so patently obvious that no one is taking any action. They talk about it, but don’t do anything.
Just shut off those power plants. You know they are the cause, so just shut them down immediately, and then start the recovery from there. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard that we are either close to, at, or even beyond the point of no return.
Please tell me why you support this when nobody is doing anything to turn it around, oh, except to make money from it that is.
I really want to know.
Tony.
101
Has society lost the will to do what it takes ? Or is there more money to be had in talking about it & taxing it ?
30
Your comment on “making money from it” is the best clue as to why factories are not being shut down. Let’s look at what most people believe to be true–cigarettes cause lung cancer. Why don’t we outlaw those? Drunk driving kills people. We can stop it via technology (make it impossible to drive a car when drunk) but we do not. Cigarettes and alchohol make a lot of money for the government. If you outlaw them, you lose the money. With the drunk driving, I’m not really sure why we don’t stop it, but in the past it was argued that the technology would prevent handicapped individuals from driving. So we let thousands die so a few more people can drive. Outlawing also leads to bootlegging, crime ncreases and social destruction. Prohibition was not a notable success. Policies are not based on the certainty of the outcome, but rather the income from the activity and the impact on personal freedoms. The repeated claims of passing the tipping point are just very poor planning on the part of the alarmists. However, one supposes “The boy who cried wolf” has been banned from schools by now as too damaging to self-esteem or something like that.
31
Simple, that would be politics. You know, interaction of different interests and perspectives in society. Trying to herd cats really. Hmm…..obviously need a bigger cattle prod….
I dont, i support it with both open eyes and mind.
Yup, trash the society your trying to preserve by making massive rapid change instead of staging things over a few decades.
Disputed. In fact your whole premise is actually a load of crap, but you are occasionally entertaining even if the basics seem to perplex you. Its actually an interesting form of trolling involved in the way you frame your appeal. Almost concern trollish? Still have done my two cents worth to make you feel genuinley noticed and to help feed the outrage meter here.
Night!
26
Seriously Catamon – for starters, if they seriously though greenhouse gas emissions were a problem why wouldn’t they hold their climate gab fests electronically rather than all flying off to exotic locations?
61
Catamon: We don’t have a few decades. Didn’t “superstore” Sandy teach you anything? It’s happening right now. Failure to act is a bigger catastrophe that–I read that in the Huffington Post. We may make 4 degrees warmer if we do nothing and 2 degrees are pretty much certain. It just keeps getting worse and worse. IF it’s that serious, then we do have to shut things down or the damage will be even greater. Future disruptions far out-weigh what a current fossil fuel shutdown would cause. How can you not know that???? You’re a believer.
21
Is it too much to hope that there will be no tomorrow from you, Catamon?
11
Catamon,
it’s interesting where you say here:
That being the case then, what I do say would be relatively easy to refute or even give another side of the story.
Why is it that no one who frequents this side from that other side, even you, do come in and reply to my comments and shoot them down if you say it seems so easy to you. They assiduously don’t reply.
Tony.
21
Lots of people seem to reply to you Tones, i certainly did, in fairly clear terms.
If it wasn’t the response you wanted. meH?
And i replied in those terms, or do you want to do the wash, rinse repeat so evident here of i quote evidence, you belittle it, you quote evidence, i tell you its crap, yadda, yadda ,yadda ?? And then all the angry boys and girls in the grump squad can jusmp in and yell abuse of course.
Now, is that the driving of the outrage meter your after??
11
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be “They do not refute the data”. In science, a reply to a hypothesis is either to affirm it or to refute the data. While in the blogosphere, a response is anything from a finger gesture to name-calling to filling a page with drivel, which anyone can do that can push keys on a keyboard, science is about data. It’s about logic.
I would agree that you do respond and then the fight is on, but perhaps if you tried responding in scientific terms, it would help. Data, information to be refuted or agreed with. I’m not sure a blog is a good place for that, but perhaps. It’s worth a try.
If you need a bit of help understanding the difference between science and not science, say so. The rules of science can be enumerated for you it need be.
11
Its a worthy sentiment Sheri, but here the invariable reactions to the presentation of any evidence for AGW is that the data is wrong, falsified, its a con and you cant believe that dude because someone said something…..yadda yadda…
I really get a laugh from the Agenda 21, the UN is evil and they want us dead yesterday posts. 🙂
And then there is the den…..assertions that there is no actual evidence for warming in the temp record anyway, and CO2 cant possibly be a cause. Most who aren’t
on the general kool aidof the more common opinion group here give up after the 2nd or 3rd round of abuse and just come back for the occasional interesting link, see what the angry demographic are outraged about this week, and occasionally have some fun.11
And again, a non answer. You dance around the issue. You “know” responses before anyone posts them. If you want anyone to listen (and I’m unconvinced that is your goal at all) you have to stop refusing to answer on the grounds that you KNOW the answer. You are not psychic, of that I am certain.
This is what is killing any hope of climate change actually being believed. I asked if you would move underground if there was a consensus in peer-reviewed journals that meteors that only these people can detect and they won’t share data are going to hit earth. A simple question–just answer that one.
00
well said Tony!
10
And the massive CO2 released by the “disciples of Doha”. … junket time, stuff the CO2, it doesn’t matter to them.
And why are all these climate hypochondriacs still using coal based power for their computers. I bet that not one of the regular catastrophists here runs purely solar for their power. They often post after dark, so they obviously are RELIANT on coal power.
When the alarmists start really walking their talk, I will sit back in amazement !!! But hey, their high priest, big Al, sets their tone.
20
I’ve followed the debate for years. Not blindly however. I too have asked, why not clouds, undersea volcanoes, natural variation, is climate sensitivity ver-estimated?
The answers, when you get back to peer-reviewed research instead of web blogger, is that the science is very clear. We are the cause, GHGs the problem.
You mean like producing the IPCC report?
The climate scientists that are telling us there is a problem are not the same people that run the coal fired power stations. How do you expect them to do it?
It’s really up to the general public to apply pressure on our governments. We are well enough informed, despite the small percentage of “skeptics” that disagree.
But I expect it’ll take a few more decades and more catastrophies before real action is taken. Unfortunately that’s human nature for you – more likely to act in the best interest of the individual rather than for future generations. History is littered with such tales.
31
When you say you follow the experts in the field, you are making the same claim psychics do, churches do, etc. No one can understand Catholicism like the Pope and the church bishops. They are the EXPERTS. Yet you won’t accept that argument. Argument from authority is argument from authority–it matters not who that authority is. If you claim climate science is too difficult to understand, you just affirm that severe abuses are very probable since no one will have any idea if the claimed expert is right or not. You elevate climate scientists to gods–all knowing and irrefutable. Only THEY know……
In a few more decades, the lies and deception will be very apparent from the warmist group. It’s all falling apart now.
IF science said there were meteors coming from outer space, the experts have the data and no one but they can understand it so don’t ask, just trust, and they advised the human race to live underground, should we start digging? It’s the exact same argument. If there was consensus from the UN that this was going to happen but it was too complex to trust to the uneducated, should the world move underground. This is your argument. You cannot tell me that THEN we should not listen to the experts because you base all of your belief on peer-reviewed articles. And, you can’t just tell me it won’t happen. Maybe not, but if it did, would you move underground to save yourself from the meteors that are too far out to see except with university equipment and they won’t let you verify? I hope you would because at least then your allegiance to experts would be shown for what it is–worship of the peer-reviewed gods.
12
It would rather depend on how big the meteors were, and where and when they were going to land. With that information from expert astronomers we can then make a rational assessment and informed decision of whether to dig, deploy Bruce Willis, or just get newted and try to crack on to Liv Tyler.
Of course you could ignore the expert advice on information actually gathered with the kind of instrumentation that has a shot (with uncertainties) of calculating whether the impact will occur because of course they have no right to tell you what to believe, but if you do, and they are right, then you wont have a hole to hide in and will probably be sober and will be all the more bitter and twisted for have never even attempted to crack on to Liv Tyler.
🙂
All humour aside, i suspect that you may wish to rethink you “argument from authority” lines. I generally find people who rely too heavily on that as a debating device either have far to high an opinion of their own science background, or are just annoyed that you dont argue from the same “authorities” they do. Oh, and have little appreciation for how politics and governance works in the real world where specialisation is the norm.
01
Here we go again. Thanks Flannery and all the other false prophets at CSIRO et al:
“Water bills up $310 next year to pay for desalination plant, but French builder says it’s too big”
Stephen Drill
Herald Sun
December 03, 2012
The French boss of the troubled Wonthaggi desalination plant has admitted for the first time that the plant is too big for Melbourne’s water needs.
Suez Environment chief executive Jean-Louis Chaussade told the Herald Sun the size of the plant was based on unrealistic rainfall expectations.
“The design was done to provide water to the full city of Melbourne in case of no rain during one year – which was not realistic … The details why it was 150GL per year, I don’t know,” he said.
30
Regarding the “puzzle” in my earlier post, Stephen Wilde responded in agreement on Roy Spencers’s blog and I replied …
The reasons I usually only mention Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is that they are the ones (in addition to Earth) that have a “qualifying atmosphere” which is not only dense enough, but also has sufficient height. So of course these atmospheres have mass.
However, for much the same reason that objects of different mass still have the same acceleration in a gravitational field, the computations for the dry adiabatic lapse rate (here) show it proportional to g and inversely proportional to specific heat. So the composition affects it as a result of varying specific heat, rather than varying mass. This of course is most relevant when clouds or high levels of water vapour are present.
The effective mean lapse rate seems to end up being about two thirds (maybe up to 90% on some planets) but the main point is that it is never zero, which is what is assumed in those 33 degree calculations. So what we are both demonstrating is that the effective lapse rate is fully sufficient in itself so as not to require even a single degree of that “33 degrees” of warming by backradiation. So there is no radiative GHE.
In regard to Venus, I have to say though that there would have been absolutely no radiation coming back from the surface which would have contributed to the original heating. Any such upwelling radiation would have to be less than the 2.1 W/m^2 of insolation originally received by the surface. Now that the surface is very close to the temperature of the base of the atmosphere, I suppose there could be a minor effect, but it would be less than 1% of the effect of the incident radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and diffused downwards.
So, overall, it is the process of diffusing hotter temperatures towards the base which sets the temperature of the base of these atmospheres. This does not violate laws of thermodynamics, because, regarding 1st LoT there is no energy gain in the PE/KE exchange, and, regarding 2nd LoT, there is no reduction in entropy – which is what the 2nd LoT is really about. See this page in Wikipedia from which I quote …
The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system.
Yes, I agree that the level of the temperature plot depends on the mean Solar radiation reaching the planet. This is simply because the mean radiation being emitted must balance that absorbed. So there is indeed an equivalent altitude at which the radiation matches this level, whilst hotter altitudes radiate more and cooler ones less. It is not the geometric mid point of course, because irradiance is proportional to T^4, as per S-B Law.
The very fact that the calculations based on the lapse rate work accurately on Earth actually implies that the combination of the level of mean Solar insolation and g also determines the temperature at the base of the Earth’s atmosphere. So I am saying that, even though we know full well that plenty of energy flows back from Earth’s surface to the atmosphere, that would not be enough on its own to raise the atmosphere’s temperature from absolute zero to what it is. It is primarily happening because of the fact that the Sun heats the surface more during the day, so there is an outward flow especially at night. As I have been saying, the temperature at the base of the atmosphere “came first” and it “supports” the surface temperature. This is the very reason why long term variations in mean Solar insolation (possibly due somehow to planetary orbits and variations in Earth’s own distance from the Sun) are the cause of cyclic patterns in climate.
11
Hi All,
Re temps: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html
What say ye?
Important or not, several posters at WUWT provided this link.
10
Hi Ray,
Thanks for the link.
I guess for warmists, if the Earth’s temperature refuses to go above “average”, then lower the “average” and exclaim proudly, “See I told you the temperatures are above average!”
If these people were anymore transparent, they’d be invisible.
00
This is a typical example of mistaken thinking …
Tallbloke (Roger) said “What actually caused the warming was extra short wave from the Sun heating the ocean when the cloud cover diminished. It is what the empirical data says. I am at a loss to explain why so many people keep ignoring it.
No, Roger, this is not what Stephen Wilde and I are saying in unison.
Just because there’s a correlation with empirical data, this does not establish the cause. The effect of (long-term) variation in mean solar insolation is that it raises the whole temperature plot in the atmosphere, because the weighted mean has to increase to maintain radiative equilibrium. Raising the whole plot (whilst maintaining the gradient) thus raises the temperature at the base of the atmosphere (as distinct from the surface temperature.)
The warmer temperature at the base of the atmosphere “supports” a warmer surface, because of daytime Solar input followed by night-time cooling which is limited by the temperature of the base of the atmosphere. The surface would not have got so hot if the atmosphere had been 255K (or 222K or whatever really is the correct theoretical figure.)
The whole point about the Adiabatic Lapse Rate (or the “effective” one) is that it happens spontaneously. The IPCC et al think otherwise, in line with the thinking of Maxwell & Co which is now proven incorrect
11
Skeptical Warmist wrote on Judith Curry’s open thread: “Greenhouse gases serve to make the thermal gradient less steep between surface and space, thus slowing the rate of cooling of the surface and raising the equilibrium temperature.”
(a) Such gases don’t make the natural adiabatic lapse rate less, because that rate is proportional to the force of gravity and inversely proportional to the specific heat – nothing else. The specific heat of carbon dioxide at around 500 K is about 4% less than that of nitrogen and so, since it is in the denominator, the adiabatic lapse rate for carbon dioxide is about 4% greater than that for nitrogen.
(b) How does the energy “trapped” in the less hot atmosphere of Venus get back to the hotter surface? It can’t, because there is a law in physics called the Second Law of Thermodynamics about which you should read.
(c) I told you, correctly, that the only effect that is physically possible would be a slowing of the rate of radiative cooling of the surface if and only if (iff) the surface were first heated somehow above the temperature of the radiating region of the atmosphere. That is correct physics. And even if the radiative component were slowed, the non-radiative cooling by conduction would simply speed up, or last longer into the Venus night and thus compensate and nullify any effect. In other words, the overall rate of surface cooling would not be affected, as happens on Earth.
Only 3% of Solar insolation gets to the surface by any process. The atmosphere cannot magnify this effect and somehow multiply the incident radiation which it absorbs and send more to the surface !!!
There is only 3% getting into the surface. That cannot heat the surface by 500 degrees so that it can then start cooling off and perhaps have its rate of cooling slowed by a mere 2 W/m^2 which is a generous estimate of the maximum possible backradiation. Whatever insolation is absorbed by conduction into the surface during its day has ample time at night to come back out again, because the rate of conduction into the surface is about the same as the rate of conduction back out again, and the night is about as long as the day – each ~120 Earth days.
11
I’m with you on this Doug.
The only component of Earth’s atmosphere that has the ability to alter the lapse rate by any more than the smallest, tiniest amount is H2O, through the change of state and latent and specific heat.
Pressure allows energy to be retained (which is why the day and night side of Venus are essentially the same), and differences in pressure allow energy to be transferred, either by convection, lateral transfer (wind), even downdrafts where they apply.
00
Thanks Andy. The interesting point about the adiabatic lapse rate is that only gravity and specific heat come into play. There is little difference in specific heat of gases – eg SH of carbon dioxide and nitrogen are pretty similar. H2O is somewhat different, depending on the phase of course as well. But over the whole globe, when we are talking about climate, only small changes are observed in mean values for water vapour, cloud cover and altitude etc. These small variations could however be related to long term climate cycles, and could possibly be caused indirectly by effects of planetary orbits on the Sun and/or cosmic rays.
The way that the temperature gradient forms is a spontaneous diffusion process. Yes, convection will play a role, but it can still occur in a closed room for example. What happens is that diffusion processes (involving molecular collisions) have to maintain a constant value for the sum of Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy. So it is simply a case of those molecules which end up lower down (with less PE) have more KE and so any small region of these has a higher temperature.
11
And since the adiabatic lapse rate has to happen (as it does spontaneously) then there is no net affect upon it due to rates of surface cooling, rates of convection or radiation. These things just temporarily stir things up a bit and it all just settles down again to the calculated gradient when considered over the full atmosphere. Nothing can stop diffusion processes “evening out” the total PE + KE in collision processes. When any molecule is in “free flight” between collisions there will be an interchange of some PE and KE, but the total stays the same. However, when two molecules collide, the total of the PE+KE for the two of them stays the same, but it is evenly distributed. So diffusion “evens out” the sum of PE and KE. What is does not do is just even out KE. The reason is simply because gravity acts upon each molecule when in flight, just as it does on any object in flight in a gravitational field.
So Maxwell and Boltzmann were wrong and Loschmidt was right back in the 19th century.
01
I have a thought that, if we ever get enough data, we will be able to show that on average, the energy transfer from surface to upper atmosphere is totally defined by gravity.
This would imply that NOTHING in the Earth’s atmosphere changes the total atmospheric energy, EXCEPT the incoming energy from the sun.
Its all one big balancing act, with huge buffering effects.
00
That’s not far from the mark, Andy. The lapse rate is g/Cp where Cp is specific heat. So variations in water vapour and suspended water droplets cause a difference between dry and moist lapse rates. But, over the whole globe, it is probably natural variations in cloud cover, cloud mass and cloud altitude and albedo that cause long term natural climate cycles, but these can’t get too far off a “stabilised mean” which has to do with the temperatures underground near the surface. The deeper you go (even say just 200 to 300 metres) the more stable these temperatures are over perhaps thousands of years. The CLOUD experiment may throw more light on all this.
00
Andy, with recent reading, I tend to disagree that pressure retains heat. Certainly a car tyre gets a bit warmer when you apply energy and pump it up. But it cools again, whilst retaining that pressure. I now believe it is all to do with molecular diffusion maintaining a constant sum of (PE+KE) and thus warmer temperatures at the base of the atmosphere. See “THE VENUS DILEMMA” below.
00
Where can I go to find out where I should go….?
As a paid up climate sceptic, I frequently have to find stuff. You know, to help people along their own pathway to discovering the scope and scale of the AGW scam.
If I wanted to get a concise round up of major (pro and con) current lines of thinking about say, the volume and size of Antarctic Ice over the last 100, the significance or otherwise of the current pause in warming, the effect and timing of atmospheric CO2 on global temperatures, Arctic summer ice extent etc etc etc.
Is there an alternative to hitting the same few sites and ‘Searching’ and sifting thru all the references? Or is there a magical place somewhere that has all this stuff already organised and referenced under topic headings?
Any suggestions?
00
You can always try the iPhone app called “our climate” available up top on the right side bar.
00
I would add that I search for articles with the .edu extension. You get the science research that way. There are websites that say they are trying to present both sides: climate dialogue.org is a new one. Former NASA astronauts have one, too. Perhaps it’s just my skeptic nature, but I actually prefer to research the long way. It’s amazing how much you can learn about some of the weirdest things while using a search engine for research!!
00
THE VENUS DILEMMA
Let me try to explain better …
The process of diffusion in the vertical direction in a gravitational field effectively turns a “level base” into a “sloping base” like a concrete driveway running down a hillside. There will be some absorption of Solar insolation at all levels in the Venus atmosphere, because we know at least some gets through to the surface. Think of this absorption as being like lots of different size loads of sand dumped on that sloping driveway. In general, the piles will be smaller as you go towards the top. So there’s no real propensity for convection rising in the atmosphere (sand from higher piles flowing down through the bigger piles further down the slope) so what happens is simply that the amount of radiation varies at different levels to get rid of the sand. But it stops when it gets down to the concrete driveway. The mean amount of radiation has to equate with the incident radiation, so this requirement (long ago) set the level of the driveway, but not its gradient – gravity and the specific heat of the gas set the gradient.
Now I know that some radiation (roughly half) is directed towards the hotter surface, but those who understand what Prof Johnson proved, will realise that the electro-magnetic energy in such radiation is never converted to thermal energy in a hotter region than that from whence it came. Instead it is immediately re-emitted, just as if “pseudo scattered.” Hence the energy in all radiation from the atmosphere always ends up eventually getting to space, even if it strikes the surface, or gets partly absorbed by cooler gas and subsequently re-emitted.
So the diffusion process in a gravitational field sets the gradient of the temperature plot in the atmosphere, with some small variation depending on the specific heat of the gases. The incident Solar radiative flux sets the overall level. These combine to produce a sloping, near linear temperature plot which of course intercepts the surface at a temperature which is determined by the input factors just mentioned, and nothing else.
Any additional absorption of either incident or upwelling radiation merely adds temporary energy which will be quickly radiated away and, even though such radiation is in all directions, it will eventually transfer energy out of the planetary system and back to space.
Venus is a good example, because it is so much more obvious that the surface is not heated to the temperature it reaches by the direct Solar radiation it absorbs. Instead, an interplay of conduction (diffusion) and radiation at the surface/atmosphere interface keeps the surface at a temperature close to that of the base of the atmosphere.
Which came first – the chicken or the egg? The temperature of the base of the atmosphere must have come first because otherwise it would be just too much of a coincidence that the same formula “works” on all planets with sufficient atmospheres.
So, if you don’t accept the above, then please explain in a similar level of detail, exactly what you think explains the surface temperature, being sure to keep within the confines of the laws of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics, as I have.
Doug Cotton
01
Jo Nova
I just want to express appreciation that you don’t censor new science such as happens on WUWT, The Air Vent, Science of Doom, Tallbloke’s Talkshop and of course Skeptical Science – on all of which I have been banned for writing material such as in my published papers on PSI.
My new paper is now on PROM for open review by anyone in the world – click here.
See John O’Sullivan’s item today also …
Skeptics are rightly proud of the success of popular science blog, WUWT as an antidote to government misinformation and bias about man-made global warming. However, an irrational censorship over greenhouse gas science by site owner Anthony Watts may be about to damage the credibility of this supposed champion of higher standards in climate science.
Read more.
Doug Cotton
01